Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Motorway Lane Rentals

Mr. Page:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effects lane rental contracts are having on the speed of repairs and extent of disruption to traffic on motorways.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): Repairs carried out under lane rental contracts are completed some 30 per cent. faster than works under conventional contracts. Our widespread use of that system means that maintenance is completed faster on average than anywhere else in the world, and it has saved about £100 million in the cost of delays to road users since its introduction.

Mr. Page: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a large part of my constituency is covered by the M25, so I am glad to hear of those improvements. What is he doing to promote the use of lane rentals? As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, may I ask him to tighten up on lane rental contracts, especially the extension of time? I am sure that my right hon. Friend realises that to have a lane rental contract and then to extend the time makes that contract worthless.

Mr. MacGregor: On my hon. Friend's first point, I am glad to say that 50 per cent. of all appropriate contracts for road maintenance are on the basis of lane rentals.. Next year, the figure will rise to two thirds, which is about the maximum. Progress in this matter is ahead of the commitments given in the citizens charter.
I am aware of the good report from the Public Accounts Committee and we support a large number of its recommendations. We are dealing with the points that it raised as vigorously as possible, including the one mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Pike: Although we all welcome what the Secretary of State has said, does he recognise that there is still a massive problem? Single lanes on both the M1 and the M6 cause great traffic delays and many safety problems. Can something be done to eliminate that problem in 1992?

Mr. MacGregor: The reason for some of the delays is the need to repair and update motorways that were built some considerable time ago. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the delays would be very much greater if we

did not carry out the necessary repairs. The important point is to get the repairs done as quickly as possible, and that is what lane rental contracts are doing.

Mr. Dykes: As the Secretary of State for the control of unnecessary cones, can my right hon. Friend give us an up-to-date report on the current position? Far too many motorways have long lanes of cones even when no work is being carried out, and that is especially true at weekends. Are cones to be the only growth industry, apart from security men? I hope that my hon. Friend can give us that up-to-date report.

Mr. MacGregor: I share my hon. Friend's view, but it not the only matter with which I have to deal. The amount of maintenance on motorways has risen by 30 per cent., which is why there are more cones about. The lane rental contracts speed up the time it takes to carry out repairs, which should considerably reduce the number of times that we see cones on motorways.
On my hon. Friend's other point, we insist that all contractors give information to drivers where cones are being used. In particular, they must give information about why cones are being used if it does not appear that any work is being carried out. If anyone sees a 4-mile stretch of cones where it appears that no work is being done and there is no information to tell people what is happening, I hope that they will let me know.

Red Routes

Mr. Harry Greenway:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effect the red route pilot projects have had on the traffic flow in London.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): On the pilot red route overall accidents have reduced by 36 per cent., with accidents for cyclists down by 55 per cent. and for mopeds/motor cyclists by 60 per cent. In addition, bus journey times have reduced by more than 10 per cent. and their reliability has been improved by a third.

Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend on those figures. Will he confirm that my constituents living at the side of the A40, which is shortly to become a red route, will have ingress and egress to and from their properties and that worshippers going to St. John Fisher church in Perivale will be able to continue to do so without let or hindrance?
As wheel clamps are never used on red routes, why are they used so freely elsewhere?

Mr. Norris: It has always been the case that the key to red route implementation is flexibility, and that the local community's ability to go about its normal business is uppermost in our minds. I can give my hon. Friend the reassurances that he seeks in respect of his constituents.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does not the Minister accept that he and his Department are living in a completely different world from those of my constituents who are affected by the red route scheme? Residents with a year's experience of the red route know that it has succeeded only in attracting more traffic to a part of London that is already congested. In addition, it spells disaster for local traders and shopkeepers. Should not the Minister wake up to that reality?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. There is no evidence of extra traffic. Any increase—bar 2 per cent. that is currently unaccounted for—derives from rat-running traffic being taken back on to the main road, where it ought to be. The hon. Gentleman knows that many businesses off the red route in Islington have suffered equally difficult times. There is no evidence to connect lower business activity with the existence of red routes.

Mr. Horam: Does my hon. Friend accept that although there is a great deal of support for the red route policy, it could be defeated if too much traffic is forced on to the roads because of deteriorating community rail services? Is he aware that there has been a massive downgrading of the service on Kent commuter lines in particular since May? Some believe that one reason is the desire to create slots for channel tunnel rail services. Will my hon. Friend speak to the director of Network SouthEast to ascertain the facts, and to ensure that the admirable red route policy will not be undermined from that quarter?

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is right in saying that we ought to consider not only improving traffic performance but investment in public transport. Some £3.5 billion is to be spent on London Underground alone in pursuit of that objective. As to Network SouthEast, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will convey my hon. Friend's remarks to Network SouthEast.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister remember telling the House that the additional facilities for walkers, cyclists, and parking were a major element in the red route proposals? Does he recall also telling the House:
the annual cost of the additional police officers and traffic wardens will be about £25 million."—[Official Report, 18 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 6101.]?
Why does not the Minister provide cycling, walking and parking facilities elsewhere in London, and examine instead preventing congestion—which would surely represent better value for money than that £25 million?

Mr. Norris: Red route programme expenditure is devoted entirely to relieving congestion. I thought that the hon. Gentleman understood that. He is right to say that enforcement is the key, which is why his local borough welcomes the powers in part II of the Road Traffic Act 1991, which will release resources for policing the routes.

Sir John Wheeler: Is my hon. Friend aware that the red route initiative is very welcome in my constituency, but that if it is to be carried through, it is essential that my hon. Friend reviews the management of bridges across the Thames? All too often, they are closed or have obstructions placed upon them. There is no point in pushing traffic through London if it cannot cross the river.

Mr. Norris: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for the red route programme. He has been in contact with my office about the important question of bridges, and I assure him that I will take a personal interest in ensuring that river crossings are managed as effectively as possible.

Traffic Congestion, Wearside

Mr. Etherington:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals to reduce road traffic congestion on Wearside.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): Apart from the Al9 west of Sunderland, which is not congested, the responsibility for roads on Wearside lies with the local highway authority, Sunderland city council.

Mr. Etherington: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new post, and wish him every success in it.
Does the Secretary of State accept that, although billions of pounds have been spent on motorways and bypasses, such measures have only a marginal effect on traffic in urban areas and, indeed, city centres? Does he agree that the way ahead lies in dedicated tramway systems and, possibly, in an extension of the Tyne and Wear metro system from Tyneside to Wearside?

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for over-promoting me, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State heard what he said and will be grateful for his good wishes.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, in July the city council will be able to present its bids for transport supplementary grant, and I shall of course pay careful attention to the bid from his local authority. It is worth pointing out, however, that last year we accepted the Doxford park access road into our scheme, and that it is one of five local schemes that we are now supporting.

Mr. Butcher: Can I persuade my hon. Friend to increase spending in Wearside by approximately £10 million? That is the amount that he would save by abandoning the unwanted, unneeded bypass improvement schemes in Coventry, South-West. My constituents——

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been most ingenious, but he cannot get that one past me. I think that he has probably asked his question now.

Mr. Butcher: I am anxious to help my colleague from Wearside, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), on an all-party basis. I assure him that there is £10 million in the kitty, from my constituency to his—

Madam Speaker: That is excellent, and I am sure that the Minister appreciates it.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) brought a delegation to my office. I do not expect ever again to receive a delegation in the House and to be asked not to spend money in an hon. Member's constituency.

Mr. Boyes: In view of the congestion in Wearside and other areas, will the Minister consider conducting an experiment to establish the relationship between a reduction in the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph and injury levels in defined dangerous areas?

Mr. Carlisle: We are considering whether we can extend the criteria under which local authorities will be able to make up their own minds about the speed limit that is suitable in their areas. I hope to make progress on that in the autumn.

Aviation

Mr. Jonathan Evans:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government's policy on the future of state aids for the aviation industry.

Mr. MacGregor: In the light of the important agreement on the single market in aviation reached at the Transport Council on 22 June, the removal of state aids in aviation is now more crucial than ever.
We believe that state aids that distort, or threaten to distort, competition undermine the effective operation of the market and so harm the interests of air passengers. We will therefore continue to press the Commission to use its powers to control these subsidies strictly, particularly where they are used to shore up inefficient carriers or to finance major expansion plans and acquisitions.

Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the agreement that he was able to reach in Luxembourg has been widely welcomed? At least Conservative Members recognise it as a significant step forward in the introduction of greater choice and competition. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the great success for which he was responsible is carried forward, thus securing more genuine competition with all European airlines?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The agreement came at the end of 10 years of negotiation in which the British Government took the lead. It represents a major landmark in the development of the European aviation industry, and is far the most significant advance in the opening of European skies to full competition.

Mr. Prescott: When is it coming in?

Mr. MacGregor: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's sedentary question is that 90 per cent. of the arrangement will come in on 1 January next year. Contrary to some press reports, it is coming in pretty quickly.
I very much take the second point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). I assure him that we shall use our presidency to steer the Community towards better-defined guidelines on state aids, which would have to be followed strictly—I emphasise the word "strictly"—by member states wishing to give aid to their airlines.

Mr. Sproat: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he and his officials achieved in Brussels last week. Will he assure the House that he will use the British presidency to ensure that the great potential benefits that he won for passengers are not diluted, delayed or rendered useless by other EC Governments subsidising their own state airlines—as they are still doing—or by, for example, abuses of airport slot allocations or other anti-competitive or anti-consumer local working practices?

Mr. MacGregor: The agreement that we reached sets the very significant background to the agreement. As the chairman of British Midland said, it opens up tremendous opportunities. I recognise, however, that there are other steps still to be taken and that there are other significant areas still to be tackled. That in no way undermines the very important advances that we have seen as a result of the agreement. As my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, they are in the areas of state aid which, as I have already said, we shall be taking forward during our presidency. I hope that we shall be able to complete the competition package. I recognise also that slots represent another important aspect in opening up the markets.

Mr. Snape: Will the Secretary of State stop reading out his press releases? Does he accept the view of Sir Colin Marshall, the chief executive of British Airways, that

The agreement is not as much as we"—
meaning them—
originally hoped for and nowhere near as much as we would have liked"?
Does he also accept the view of Mr. Ian Wild, airline analyst at BZW, who said that
The EC agreement seems to be couched in such restrictive terms and with so many conditions that it will be a practical impossibility for anyone to achieve radical change"?
Are they talking about the 90 per cent. or the 10 per cent?

Mr. MacGregor: I disagree with both comments, particularly the last. There has been a failure by whoever said it to understand just how significant the advances are. The safeguards to which he refers are safeguards to protect passengers against predatory air fares. Both Mr. Richard Branson and Sir Michael Bishop warmly welcome this agreement and understand the importance of this advance. Of course, the agreement does not complete everything. There are still important areas to be tackled in what up to now has been a restrictive and protected market. However, I beg the hon. Gentleman to understand just how significant the advances are. I have already said that we shall be tackling those other areas. We believe that 90 per cent. of what British Airways needs in order to compete more widely in the European markets has been achieved. There is a transitional period on one point, and even there we have negotiated down the period of the transition.

Roads, Dorset

Mr. Ian Bruce:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to improve north-south road links in Dorset.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: The national trunk road programme includes two schemes—the A31 to Mannings Heath relief road and the Poole harbour bridge replacement—which, together with trunking an existing section of road, will provide a high-standard trunk road between the A31 and Poole.
Other north-south roads in Dorset are the responsibility of Dorset county council. We support the council's improvement programme through transport supplementary grant, where justified.

Mr. Bruce: Surely my hon. Friend knows that the schemes to which he referred amount to approximately a couple of miles, linking in with the east-west routes from the ports, and that they make no difference to the north-south link. My hon. Friend will remember that when he was Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement at the Ministry of Defence he turned down the co-location of Sea Systems Controller in Weymouth, mainly because of the terrible north-south road link between there and Bristol. The roads have not changed. I wonder whether my hon. Friend will use the vigour that he showed in the Ministry of Defence to make sure that he shakes up the Department of Transport and puts real north-south trunk roads into Dorset?

Mr. Carlisle: When I was at the Ministry of Defence, my hon. Friend dogged me with his zeal to relocate Ministry of Defence establishments in south Dorset. I can assure him that the fact that his request did not succeed was not because of road links. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will be just as passionate about road links to Dorset, as he has no doubt hammered every single Under-Secretary of State on these matters on behalf of his constituents. The


Government have not done too badly by Dorset. A major link between the A31 and Poole is in the programme. Four other north-south schemes are also in the programme and are supported by us to the tune of about £30 million. It might be worth mentioning, as evidence of our support for Dorset, that in the past 10 years eight bypasses have been built in Dorset, two are now under construction and an additional 15 are in the programme, so Dorset is doing very well by the Department of Transport.

Roads (Environmental Protection)

Mr. Peter Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to make roads more sympathetic to the landscape through which they pass.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to make roads more sympathetic to the landscape through which they pass.

Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to ensure that the natural environment is protected when new roads are built and existing roads improved.

Mr. MacGregor: We always undertake a thorough environmental assessment and give great weight to sensitive design in the development of trunk roads. A great deal of time, care and money are devoted these days to designing schemes to fit into the existing landscape.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend recognise the importance of balancing protection of the environment with the needs of an expanding economy? Does he agree that the increase in the number of cars and commercial vehicles on our roads—for example, on the A69 in my constituency—is a direct reflection of that increasing prosperity?

Mr. MacGregor: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. As most hon. Members know, much of the pressure for improved roads, new road schemes and, perhaps above all, bypasses comes from our constituents. That is why we have a massive road programme. He is right to say that increased prosperity has led to increased traffic. At the same time, it is important to ensure, as we do, that the environmental impact of our future major networks is as beneficial as possible.

Mr. Townsend: I recognise the Government's national success in this regard, but does not my right hon. Friend think, on consideration, that the east London river crossing would be more sympathetic to an 8,000-year-old wood and a site of special scientific interest if his two predecessors had agreed that it should be a cut-and-cover tunnel, as agreed by the inspector at the inquiry?

Mr. MacGregor: The crossing was the subject of many inquiries before decisions were taken. I know from having come to the matter afresh that everything has been considered and everything is being done to ensure the minimum environmental effect.

Mr. Moss: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the go-ahead is given for the east coast motorway a comprehensive environmental impact assessment will be undertaken to measure its impact on the unique drainage of the Fens area of my constituency? On the dualling of the A47, will he confirm, if not today then later, that his

Department is investigating possible lines of routes both north and south of the River Neve in the vicinity of Wisbech?

Mr. MacGregor: The Government have no plans for an east coast motorway. As my hon. Friend will know, that plan was put forward by a consortium of local authorities and private contractors. If at any point—I make it clear that I do not envisage anything—such a scheme were proposed, it would be subject to the full environmental impact assessment that we require of all schemes. My hon. Friend will know that we plan to make a dual carriageway of the whole of the A47 from Peterborough to Great Yarmouth. I know how widely welcomed that is by all road users in Norfolk, my county. I am not aware of the scheme to which he referred, but if I may I shall look into it and write to him.

Mr. David Marshall: What new measures, if any, is the Secretary of State taking to improve safety on our roads?

Mr. MacGregor: We spend a lot of time and money on measures to improve safety—road signing, road design——

Mr. Norris: Red routes.

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, on red routes and on matters that I mentioned earlier such as motorway coning. Heavy emphasis is placed on road safety. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, although we want to do better, the number of road accidents now is the same as in 1948, despite the huge increase in traffic in the intervening period. We not only concentrate heavily on safety but the policy is having its effect.

Mr. Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, however many trees are planted, building new roads damages the environment, as is evidenced by the M25 and M3 at Twyford Down? As the current road building programme will not meet the 1989 traffic growth forecasts, would not a greener policy be to ensure a level playing field in the investment policies of all modes of transport and to devise policies that reduce the public's need to travel great distances?

Mr. MacGregor: I think that that demonstrates the muddle that the party to which the hon. Gentleman belongs so often gets into on such matters. He cannot say that we are not building enough roads to meet 1989 growth levels but then complain that we are building too many. However much of a switch there is from road to rail-I am very keen on that and we are pursuing it as much as possible—and however heavily we invest in public transport, as we do, there will still be an increasing demand for traffic by road, as prosperity grows, for individual car passengers and for road haulage. Therefore, we need the road programme and I am very keen on a heavy environmental involvement in it.
On the M25 link road, one of the options involves a considerable take-up of extra land because of the landscaping which will mean an enormous number of trees and shrubs being planted. We are trying to get the proper balance.

Mr. Prescott: To judge from the wording of the questions, the Government are more successful at planting questions than planting trees. Does the Secretary of State agree that giving insufficient resources to British Rail while


at the same time providing millions of pounds for the building of 14-lane motorways and millions of pounds for the planting of trees will merely increase the level of car exhaust gas emissions which not only damage the trees but add to the global warming problem?

Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, the Government have been very successful at planting trees. The Department of Transport plants more mature broadleaf trees than any other organisation and, as I said earlier, about 300,000 trees and 400,000 shrubs will be planted on the small stretch of the M25 if our preferred option goes ahead. Clearly, there is a heavy emphasis on tree planting.
On the balance between public transport and roads, the M25 proposal will cost £144 million. We are currently spending £700 million on capital investment in London Underground alone and about £2 billion on a very large British Rail capital investment programme. Therefore, there is a balance, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should be cutting the road-building programme—other measures will enable us to reach the carbon dioxide emissions target.

Mr. Garnier: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of my constituents for the A6 Market Harborough bypass which was opened last weekend by the Minister for Public Transport? Will he also accept that the building of the bypass has not only improved the environment of Market Harborough by removing cars and noise but has enabled 30,000 or more trees to be planted? Will he please pass on the thanks of my constituents to those involved?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who makes an important point about bypasses. Bypasses now take up about 30 per cent. of our total road programme and have a tremendously beneficial environmental effect on everyone who lives in the towns and villages that are bypassed.

Unlicensed Taxis

Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the risks to passengers involved in the use of unlicensed cabs; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): Following representations about the safety of cab users in London, we set up a working party to investigate the subject. It has just delivered its report, which we are studying with interest. We have had no representations about unlicensed cabs outside London.

Miss Lestor: I thank the Minister for that reply. When he has had time to study the report, will be bear in mind the fact that the registration and checks kept on licensed black cabs, which have made the service probably one of the best in the world, do not apply to many other private services? As the use of the private sector is becoming so large, should there not be regulations to standardise the type of vehicle used and to ensure that there are the same checks on drivers and safety as apply to the licensed cab service?

Mr. Freeman: As the hon. Lady knows, in virtually every local authority outside London, private hire vehicles as well as black taxis have to be licensed. In London, vehicles that are not taxis are not licensed. We have set up

a working party and, as I said, we are studying the recommendations carefully to see whether there is a case for introducing a greater degree of licensing in London.

Ms. Ruddock: Further to that reply, will the Minister acknowledge that there is a problem with licensed cab services outside London? Does he recall the recent case in which Rotherham magistates court and the Crown court overturned Sheffield city council's rejection of an application for a private hire licence from a man who had been convicted of assault and of drink-driving offences? There are people today driving licensed cabs who, in our view, should not be in charge of either a cab or passengers. When the Minister replied to my letter, he said that it was an "unusual decision" but declined to take further action. Will he reconsider those remarks to me? Will he take account of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust's current campaign on the issue, look at the matter afresh and make appropriate representations to his colleagues in the legal departments?

Mr. Freeman: I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the work of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. Both the hon. Lady and I have been to a number of functions sponsored by the trust. I agree that there are regrettable instances of some local authorities proceeding to license drivers when, on the face of it, they are not proceeding on a consistent basis with other local authorities. I undertake to study further the case that the hon. Lady cited, to raise the matter with colleagues in the Home Office and to write to the hon. Lady.

M25

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the widening of the M25.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Work on the proposals for the M25 announced last September is progressing well.

Mr. Marshall: I welcome my hon. Friend's proposals. Does he accept that traffic on the M25 is well above design capacity and that congestion on the M25 will be relieved only when son of M25 is built?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend raises a relevant point. I agree that a lot of traffic uses the M25. Indeed, that is one aspect of its success. It is clearly needed in the motorway network. As my hon. Friend knows, we have plans to convert the M25 within its existing boundaries into four lanes within about six years, which will certainly help. Any other improvements—indeed, all improvements—have to go through a clear scrutiny before they are accepted. We pay great attention to the needs of the environment.

Mr. Cryer: Is not the cost of motorway extending and widening extremely high? Why is the Department of Transport prepared to fund extensions with such apparent ease? Is not the real task of the Department to try to encourage people to transfer from road to rail? In that context, why is the Department holding back on a scheme such as Leeds-Bradford electrification and denying authorisation for the money for that scheme, which is in jeopardy because of the Government's railway privatisation proposals?

Mr. Carlisle: We have a balanced transport policy. I remind the hon. Gentleman that investment in public


transport is at its highest level for 30 years. We have to put the matter in context. The M25 is crucial for our economic success. It carries much of our traffic—not only local traffic, but traffic going to the main ports. It is one of the busiest roads in the country and is central to our economic performance. Our intention is to make certain that the M25 serves the nation well.

Mr. Dunn: The Minister will be aware that in the context of widening the M25, new slip roads are to be built in Dartford connecting the A2 with the M25. Will my hon. Friend give me a personal guarantee that every effort will be made to install noise minimisation measures and proper landscaping for the new slip roads in Dartford?

Mr. Carlisle: I am well aware of that scheme and its importance for my hon. Friend's constituents. I shill supervise the work carefully. I should be delighted to discuss with my hon. Friend later the demands for the road surface and for the landscaping to which we attach such importance in all our projects.

Ms. Walley: Does not what we have just heard show that the Government have a completely piecemeal approach to transport policy? Given the way in which we have heard about the announcement for the £2.5 billion programme, will the Minister tell us what he is doing about the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment in its report? Why have those recommendations not been taken on board in full in relation to that extension? Will the Minister give me a guarantee that there will be full public consultations in respect of the review of the manual on environmental appraisal which has long been promised and is long overdue?

Mr. Carlisle: I think that the hon. Lady's sums are a little wrong. It was announced last week that the link roads between junctions 12 and 15 will in fact cost about £140 million. Moreover, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we are concentrating on environmental matters in the scheme. Some two thirds of the land take will be used for landscaping—planting trees, and so forth. However, I agree with the hon. Lady that the SACTRA report is important. We are examining its conclusions and we expect to come forward with a new environmental manual very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

National Audit Office

Mrs. Currie: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what funds have been expended in the last two years by the National Audit Office in maintaining links with similar organisations in the European Community.

Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The National Audit Office spent about £60,000 in the financial year 1990–91 and £120,000 in 1991–92 on maintaining links with similar organisations in the European Community.

Mrs. Currie: I am delighted to hear that the National Audit Office is spending money maintaining links with the European Commission. Given that the most difficult problem with public money is keeping tabs on it, finding

out where it has gone and ensuring that we obtain value for money for it, is it not right and proper that we, with our knowledge and expertise in this country, should be sharing the same with our colleagues in the European Community and ensuring that they do the same?

Sir Peter Hordern: My hon. Friend is quite right. As she knows, one of the provisions of the Maastricht treaty is to give the European Parliament new powers, which may be turned to examine the Commission as a whole, in respect of examining expenditure in much the same way as our Public Accounts Committee does here. I hope that the budget committee of the European Parliament will be able to carry out its work.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how much the National Audit Office spends on publicity for its reports.

Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office handles its own publicity and one member of staff acts as press officer. Advance copies of reports are provided to the press and other interested parties. In the financial year 1991–92, the cost of those copies amounted to about £6,000.

Mr. Bottomley: I suspect that that is very good value for money, economical, efficient and effective. Will my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission pass on to the Comptroller and Auditor General my thanks and the thanks of the House as in future those reports are to be made available to hon. Members at 3.30 pm, before they are made available to the press, and not at midnight?

Sir Peter Hordern: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many non-departmental public bodies are audited by the National Audit Office.

Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office audits the individual accounts of 92 non-departmental public bodies.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Can he comment on the written reply that I received from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in January which referred to the principle that the choice between having bodies audited by private accountants or by the NAO is normally related to how quasi-commercial are the activities of that public body? Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that no reason will be given to the House relating to lack of resources or staffing in the NAO, for which I believe the hon. Gentleman has a responsibility, as grounds for putting the auditing of grant-maintained schools out to private accountants? A school must be the last public body that one could possibly think of as being quasi-commercial, so the auditing of grant-maintained schools should clearly not be carried out by private accountants.

Sir Peter Hordern: I understand that some schools are required to appoint an external auditor and to provide the Department of Education with annual audited accounts. The audit arrangements will be covered by a code of practice on which accountancy bodies and the National Audit Office have been consulted. The hon. Gentleman might also like to know that the Comptroller and Auditor General has rights to inspect the accounts and relevant records of individual schools and to carry out value-for-money studies. The National Audit Office is


currently undertaking a study of the financial control of grant-maintained schools, during which it will exercise those inspection rights. The hon. Gentleman is quite right: there is no question of the National Audit Office suffering from lack of funds.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Underground Railways

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what comparisons his Department has done between the London underground and the Paris metro.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): My Department has not carried out any comparisons between the London underground and the Paris metro, but I have taken a close interest in the joint report produced by the London Research Centre and its French opposite number, and it is clear from their work that the two railway systems face very different problems and serve very different markets.

Mr. Cohen: If the Minister has seen that report from the London Research Centre and the Ile de France regional council, he will have seen that 9 per cent. of French trains and 20 per cent. of London trains are overcrowded; that one in five trains in Paris and one in two in London are more than 22 years old; that fares are three times higher in London than in Paris, and that the city centre rail network in Paris is "overwhelmingly superior" to that in London. Does that not prove that socialist planning in public transport is far superior to capitalist neglect?

Mr. Norris: No, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is extraordinarily selective in the little gems that he picks from the report because he thinks that they suit his case, and he completely ignores the £3.5 billion which is to be spent on the London underground in the next three years.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

Clocking-on

Mr. Skinner: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will now end the system of clocking on and off for workers in and around the House.

Mr. Beith: I understand that the relevant Departments of the House have no plans to do so.

Mr. Skinner: It is a scandal that some of the lowest paid people in this building—canteen workers—have to clock on, while Ministers are carted in chauffeur-driven cars in order to come here to vote. Those canteen workers earn £100 a week, and they can lose £7 a time for being a few minutes late. At night when they knock off, if the House finishes straight after a 10 o'clock vote those people, many of them women, are turned out without a chance to go home in a taxi while Ministers are carted from one oak-panelled study to the next. The Government talk about a classless society and we have citizens charters coming out of every Minister's earholes, yet those people are treated like chattels. Get something done!

Mr. Beith: The time recording system is necessary to establish overtime payments correctly and it is used by every member of the Refreshment Department up to and including the Director of Catering.

Mr. Skinner: The lowest paid.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman gives a misleading account of the rates of pay provided. He should also take account of the fact that transport is provided for late sittings of the House——

Mr. Skinner: Not at 10 o'clock.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question. Let us hear Mr. Beith.

Mr. Beith: I know of no representations from unions representing the staff that the system of time recording should be abolished.

Members and Staff (Working Conditions)

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what assessment the Commission has made of the implications of the recommendation in the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House for working conditions of hon. Members and staff.

Mr. Beith: The Commission has made no assessment of the possible implications of the report on the sittings of the House because of its responsibility to ensure that appropriate staffing arrangements are made to accommodate whatever hours of sitting the House may determine.

Mr. Tredinnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the procedures of the House are streamlined and become more efficient, not only Members but staff will benefit as a result of the great reduction in late-night sittings, many of which are deemed by hon. Members to be unnecessary?

Mr. Beith: Yes, Madam Speaker. That is my view, but it is for the Commission to provide appropriate staffing arrangements for whatever the House may determine.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman support the provision of nursery facilities for the children of the workers who support us in this House?

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is gazumping a later question. If he rephrases his question so that it refers to sittings of the House, I will hear it.

Mr. Davies: My question relates to whatever hours the House works——

Madam Speaker: Order. That was not the original question. We must move on now.

Members' Facilities

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans he has to improve facilities in the House to assist hon. Members in the discharge of their duties.

Mr. Beith: Responsibility for proposing new facilities for hon. Members rests with the domestic Committees,


which are expected to meet shortly. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the developing plans for the construction of new office accommodation on the phase 2 site and the introduction of a new computer network for Members and their staff. I shall be happy to pass on to the relevant Committees any other suggestions that the hon. Gentleman may have.

Mr. Bruce: Has the right hon. Gentleman thought about the possibility of giving hon. Members an option of staff based in the House or more money to provide facilities outside, perhaps in their constituencies? That would take the pressure off existing facilities and allow a much quicker raising of standards for Members and secretaries working together in the House.

Mr. Beith: Those matters do not fall within the responsibility of the Commission. The House may hear more about the subject shortly, but not from the Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Agencies

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 12 May, Official Report, column 79, what representations he has received calling for early action to make replies from next steps agencies more accessible to hon. Members and the general public.

Mr. Newton: I have not received any further representations. The House authorities have received our proposals for publishing agency chief executives' replies. We remain hopeful that the House will take an early decision, now that the Administration Committee has been reconstituted.

Mr. Flynn: Representations from 208 hon. Members are contained in early-day motion 1. Is it not a continuing disgrace that the increasing number of answers from next steps agencies are not readily accessible, except in this marvellous publication produced by my office and the Rowntree trust? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we return to the previous system, whereby traditionally Ministers answered questions for their areas of responsibility, and those then appeared automatically in Hansard. Is not the Government's commitment to sweeping away the cobwebs of secrecy gossamer-thin?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to agree with the latter part of his remarks. As for his gesture in waving at me his excellent document, "Open Lines", I thought that he was going to complain about our nationalisation proposals in that respect. As he knows, we have proposed to the appropriate Committee that the reply should be published in a way that would be more convenient to the House and the public. I hope that an early decision will be made on that proposal and that it will be the clearest demonstration that there is no thought of trying to conceal useful information from those who should have it.

Working Conditions

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to report on the question of hours and working conditions in the House of Commons.

Mr. Newton: I intend to arrange a debate on the report on the Select Committee on Sittings of the House before the House rises for the summer recess.

Mr. Skinner: If the Government got rid of moonlighting in this gentlemen's club—250 Tory Members in the last Parliament had more than 500 moonlighting jobs between them—we could start talking about changing our hours. Is not the real reason why Parliament does not start until 2.30 pm so that Tory Members can make money in the law courts and board rooms and then turn up later? If the Government want to improve facilities, would it not be a good idea to use the Robing Room as a nursery and change the Royal Gallery into a cafeteria for visitors? If the royal family keeps pushing the self-destruct button, we shall get it.

Mr. Newton: Once again, the hon. Gentleman has enlivened our proceedings. I shall confine my comments, for the time being, to the more mundane business of looking at the recommendations of the Jopling report.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will the European Community's working time directive apply to the working of the House?

Mr. Newton: As there is no such thing as a working time directive at present—at least, not an agreed one—I am not in a position to judge.

Office Costs Allowance

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to announce the results of the review of the office costs allowance; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Newton: Before the summer recess.

Mr. Mullin: Is the Lord President aware that a number of unscrupulous newspapers, not least that fascist rag The Sun, have been seeking to pretend that the office costs allowance is merely an extension of our salaries? Is he aware that many of us, particularly those who operate offices in their constituencies, subsidise the office costs allowance from our own pockets? Will he make it clear in the House today that, whatever view the Government take on the final figures, this is an argument about the quality of service that we can provide for our constituents?

Mr. Newton: Without endorsing the language that the hon. Gentleman used, which came close to being as colourful as that of his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I would certainly endorse the general proposition that there is a clear distinction to be drawn between the salaries of Members of Parliament and the amounts that they are paid to acquire the necessary assistance to do the job that the public expect of them.

Mrs. Currie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are Members of this House with about 40,000 constituents and Members of this House with more than 80,000 constituents, often scattered across large areas of the countryside while the allowance that we receive to serve our constituents is identical? That means that many


Conservative Members also have to subsidise the allowances to a substantial degree. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that it is disgraceful for some of our newspapers to imply that Members who employ members of their families, particularly their wives, as secretaries, should do so for nothing and expect those women to work for nothing at all?

Mr. Newton: I certainly agree that the distinction to which I referred in response to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and which my hon. Friend has also drawn should be taken into account by those who comment on these matters. As for the earlier part of her question, I acknowledge some of the problems caused to Members on both sides—my hon. Friend may be right to think that the problem applies particularly to Conservative Members—by disparities in the size of their constituencies. It would be a good deal easier to tackle them through the action that we are taking over the boundary commission than to attempt to devise some allowance related to the size of constituencies.

Dr. John Cunningham: Should we not expect but also set aside the more misleading statements from some of our national newspapers about the allowances paid to Members to employ people the more effectively to represent their constituents? Will not the Leader of the House and his Cabinet colleagues accept that the longer they put off this decision the more likely it is that the groundswell of misleading innuendo and abuse of Members of Parliament will grow? Why does he not take the decision now and get on with it?

Mr. Newton: I agree with the first half of the hon. Gentleman's question. I assure him that there is no desire unnecessarily to prolong this matter, but, as he will see in due course, this is a complicated and substantial report and it is right to look at it carefully before bringing it to the House.

Select Committees

Mr. Alton: To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he is taking to speed up the nomination of Select Committees.

Mr. Newton: We are making good progress with the setting up of Select Committees with, for example, the Public Accounts Committee, the European Scrutiny Committee and the four domestic Committees already reconstituted. I hope that we shall have the remainder of the Committees—that is, the departmental Committees—in place after tomorrow's debate on the motion that I have tabled in that respect.

Mr. Alton: I welcome that news, but can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that nominations for the departmental Select Committees will be placed before the Committee of

Selection on Wednesday and that the most senior members of those Committees can then convene meetings, so that the Committees can meet at least before the House rises for the summer recess?

Mr. Newton: My understanding is that the usual way of proceeding after nominations by the Committee of Selection is that the senior members call meetings—but the timing of the recommendations by the Committee of Selection is a matter not for me but for the Committee.

London Question Time

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to institute a Question Time for London; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Newton: I have no specific proposals for a separate Question Time for London, but hon. Members representing London constituencies can, of course, ask questions of relevance to London to any of the Departments of State.

Mr. Greenway: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's reply, but will he accept that London has a special interest for the nation? London has 84 Members of Parliament. Northern Ireland has 17, Wales has 32 and Scotland has 72. The latter all have their own Question Times, so why should not there be a Question Time for London which takes account of the special problems and opportunities of London?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that it would be appropriate to move in quite the way that my hon. Friend suggests—unless there were a Minister for London, which I understand that my hon. Friend does not support, although I hope that he has not been misrepresented to me in that respect. My hon. Friend shows considerable and commendable ingenuity in putting questions about London in a variety of ways—most recently, as I heard for myself, during today's transport questions. I hope that that is of some comfort to him.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As an alternative to that, when the Leader of the House has completed his review of a programme for parliamentary business throughout the year, so that we shall have notice of what is to happen, could he formalise the occasional London debate so that, first, it is agreed that there will be an annual London debate and, secondly, we know roughly when it is to take place?

Mr. Newton: This is turning into something like business questions, but that is fair enough. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to answer his question on the hoof, but I will certainly bear it in mind.

European Council (Lisbon)

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about last week's European Council which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
The conclusions of the European Council have been placed in the Library. The meeting took place on the eve of our presidency of the Community and dealt with a range of issues which the United Kingdom will now carry forward. These include preparations for enlargement, the future financing of the Community, the issue of subsidiarity and the Uruguay round. We also discussed the deteriorating situation in Yugoslavia. We agreed to reappoint the President of the Commission for two years. Thereafter, a new five-year appointment will be made of the whole Commission.
On enlargement, we secured agreement that work should start immediately on the negotiating mandates for the EFTA countries which have applied to join the Community—Austria, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland in the first instance. Much of the ground work has already been done. I hope that we can agree negotiating mandates by the end of our presidency, so that formal negotiations can start at the beginning of next year. The Community has also agreed to step up its dialogue with the countries of central and eastern Europe in preparation for their membership. We plan to hold a meeting with the Visegrad three at Head of Government level during the presidency.
The Council also discussed the future financing of the Community. There was widespread recognition that the existing ceiling for the Community's budget will be adequate for at least the next two years. The agreed language in the communiqué on help for the poorer countries of the Community reinforces that view. It makes no commitment to the doubling of resources that the Commission had proposed.
All Heads of Government reaffirmed their commitment to the Maastricht treaty. At Maastricht we won agreement to the principle of subsidiarity and its inclusion in the treaty. At this meeting, we have taken that a stage further. Under our presidency work will go ahead on how to turn that general principle into reality in the working practices of the Community. The steps immediately envisaged include: rigorous scrutiny within the Commission on whether new proposals are necessary—any such proposals must be justified—and examination of existing legislation to see whether it could be modified or even scrapped. The Commission and the Council will report to our European Council in Edinburgh on progress made.
The European Council reaffirmed its commitment to negotiating a successful conclusion of the Uruguay round. The remaining gap between the European Community and the United States on agriculture issues is narrow. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has calculated that a GATT settlement would give a boost to world growth worth $195 billion annually in extra world income. Over $90 billion of that would go to developing countries and former communist countries. I hope that those of our partners who are still hesitating about an agreement will reflect on the enormous advantages of success and the price of failure.
We also discussed the deteriorating situation in Yugoslavia. I proposed that all member states should

make an immediate pledge of aircraft and transport personnel for the Sarajevo humanitarian airlift; that, with the help of the Commission, we should start to assemble humanitarian material at a suitable base now; and that we should demonstrate our condemnation of Serbian actions by not allowing Serbia to have part in any international organisations, including the CSCE.
With the Security Council about to meet, we agreed not to rule out the use of military means by the United Nations to achieve our humanitarian objectives. However, the United Nations has rightly been cautious about organising humanitarian operations in the absence of an effective ceasefire, and about trying to interpose itself in a civil war.
During the course of the weekend we have had discussions with the United States, the United Nations secretariat and others. The prospects for a ceasefire and for a humanitarian mission look slightly better than they did 48 hours ago, but the Serbian militia and others are numerous and well-armed. It would take only one ground-launched missile to cause serious loss of life. We stand ready to take part in a humanitarian airlift but will want to be sure that it can happen with the minimum risk to British and other lives.
We adopted conclusions on a number of other foreign policy issues. These are attached to the conclusions which are in the Library of the House. I draw the House's attention in particular to the statement on nuclear safety in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The Community has committed itself to increase its help for improving the safety of nuclear power plants. Britain has taken a lead on this issue and will be seeking a co-ordinated initiative at the economic summit next week.
I also draw the House's attention to the statement on Southern Africa, which calls on all the parties to resume negotiations in CODESA. We continue to be in close touch with the South African Government and the ANC on this.
Many of the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council constitute the agenda for the British Presidency, which starts on Wednesday. They are a huge challenge for the Community and a great responsibility for the United Kingdom.
All the issues on which I have reported to the House—subsidiarity, enlargement, future financing, the GATT round—will fall to us to manage and, we hope, to bring to a successful conclusion. Yugoslavia too will be very high on our agenda. Many difficult matters must be resolved in the months ahead.
The plain fact is that the future of Europe is at stake and it needs to be addressed with coolness, commitment, and with careful calculation.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I begin by commending President Mitterand's initiative in going to Sarajevo. I hope that the action taken by the French President and the statement made by the Lisbon Council will have the effect, at the very least, of enabling humanitarian aid to be delivered, and maintained when it is delivered, to the wretched people of the area around Sarajevo.
We support the emphasis placed by the Lisbon summit on ensuring that any action taken in relation to the former Yugoslavia must be on the basis of agreed United Nations Security Council resolutions. Will the Prime Minister ensure that our country plays a full part both in providing


humanitarian aid and in efforts to ensure the strongest possible United Nations stance against the continuing bloodshed and misery in what was formerly Yugoslavia?
The Lisbon summit made the beginning of formal negotiations about the enlargement of the European Community conditional upon achievement of agreement on the Delors 2 package. Given that precondition, how does the Prime Minister intend to pursue what he described as his highest priority of enlargement when he is opposed to Delors 2 or anything close to it? Remembering that it is not enough now to satisfy the condition of ratification of Maastricht but that he has also to gain agreement on Delors 2, how does the Prime Minister believe that he can go ahead with promotion of enlargement without the satisfaction of both of those preconditions?
We note with satisfaction that the Heads of Government at Lisbon urged member countries, in the words of the communiqué, to
pursue efforts in the social field as the necessary complement to the realisation of the Internal Market.
The Prime Minister agreed to that section of the communiqué, but does it faithfully reflect his Government's attitude to the social dimension when they refuse to adopt the social chapter and resist application of the social charter? Is there not an inconsistency between the Prime Minister's words in the communiqué from Lisbon and his actions in opposing the social dimension?
In view of the decision, made at Lisbon, to increase substantially the resources devoted to actions in the context of common external policy, can the Prime Minister tell us what the substantial increase will be and what will be the basis for its calculation and the mechanism for its use?
On the question of subsidiarity, is the Prime Minister aware that no one can sensibly argue against the democratic principle that relevant and accountable powers should be exercised at national, regional and local levels of government? So, as he takes up the presidency of the European Council this week, can the Prime Minister tell us the main components of his concept of subsidiarity and how he would expect it to work in practice? Can he, for instance, tell us what emphasis he would put on achieving safeguards against some member countries' lowering environmental standards, or following unfair industrial or economic policies, or reducing social and employment conditions and encouraging social dumping? I have no particular country in mind at this juncture, but we should be interested to hear the Prime Minister on the subject.
May I express surprise and disappointment that no time appears to have been given at the Lisbon summit to discussion of rising unemployment in the Community? Since Britain, under the present Government, has by far the fastest rising rate of unemployment in the Community, does not the Prime Minister think that he should have taken the lead in promoting such a discussion and in advancing proposals for co-ordinated action to combat the rise in joblessness? Will he give us now an undertaking that he will not allow any future summit to go by without ensuring that unemployment and the means of combating it are included on the agenda?
Finally, since the Lisbon summit has not really provided any further clarification of the political and legal status of the Maastricht treaty, following the Danish referendum result, is the Secretary of State yet in a position

to say what form of report he will put to the House before there is any proposal to return to consideration of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for some of his earlier comments, and I agree with his remarks about the courage and vision of President Mitterrand's visit to Sarajevo. It was an excellent initiative, and I thoroughly commend it. On that subject, I should say that General MacKenzie, the chief officer of UN forces in Sarajevo, has recommended within the last couple of hours that the United Nations should take control of Sarajevo airport on the basis of assurances he has received from the Serbs. We shall need to see if those assurances are matched by others—notably the Muslims, who were shelling Sarajevo over the weekend while President Mitterrand was there. But the development clearly improves the prospects of the United Nations humanitarian mission, and I thoroughly welcome it.
On the question of enlargement, the condition to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is one that was set at Maastricht some time earlier. We propose to proceed by preparing the Community mandates, which must be prepared prior to the opening of formal negotiations between now and the Edinburgh summit. The target and the expectation are that we shall be able at that summit to reach agreement on future financing. The way would then be open for us to continue negotiations with the EFTA countries on a more formal basis.
With regard to some of the areas of substantially increased expenditure, one of which relates to the increased expenditure that will undoubtedly be necesssary in the Community and beyond to assist countries in eastern Europe to deal with the very difficult problem of their nuclear establishments, the Community has committed a substantial sum—from memory, I think, 150 million ecu thus far. Clearly, there will need to be further commitments, and it is impossible at this stage to know precisely how far we shall need to go. This is largely because we do not yet know what contributions might come from the United States, from Japan, from Canada, and perhaps from other sources. I anticipate that that will be discussed further at the Munich summit in a few days' time.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we agree with the social dimension, but we do not agree with the social charter itself. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the difference?"] If hon. Members understood the difference, they would understand the point of that. The present treaty allows adequate progress on social issues. Twenty-five of the 38 measures tabled under the social action programme have been agreed—including measures on health and safety, the free movement of labour, training practice, equal opportunities and employee rights. The United Kingdom has not blocked a single proposal under the social action programme.
On the point about subsidiarity, we agreed at the summit to examine in detail how we turn the principle into a working, living practice within the Community, with examples during the period of the British presidency. There are areas in the Community where subsidiarity is not appropriate, and we should recognise that.
If we wish to have a single market with a level playing field, as we have frequently said in the House in recent years, there is a need for some action at a Community level. What we are saying about subsidiarity is that. Where


there is unnecessary intrusion, it must cease. We were no longer alone in our pleas for that at the European Council; we were joined by a number of other member states.
On the question of employment, and as a straight matter of fact, the unemployment rate is rising faster in Spain than it is in Britain. Nevertheless, it is rising faster here than we would wish. The point about GATT, is that the growth in trade would especially help with the problem of unemployment, not just in this country but in a number of other countries. Unemployment was mentioned in that context at the summit, but not as a specific subject.
The right hon. Gentleman's final question related to the political and legal status of Maastricht. It is too soon to decide in what form we will report to the House. We will be having the routine six-monthly debate on Europe later this week. That is separate from the debate promised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, which will be held at a later stage when we have a clearer indication, most notably from the Danes, of how Denmark proposes to deal with its problem.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Madam Speaker: Order. Now that we have had the opening statement and questions, may I seek the co-operation of hon. Members' Many hon. Members wish to put questions to the Prime Minister, but that can be achieved only if each Member puts just one question, and does so briskly—and, please, if the Prime Minister gives a brisk reply.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no renegotiation of the Maastricht treaty is likely to produce more favourable terms for the United Kingdom than those that he has already achieved? However, if we are to protect the principle of subsidiarity, some renegotiation of the Single European Act and the treaty of Rome is needed.
Has my right hon. Friend noted the appalling inconsistency of those who are now advocating a referendum? They did not do so when we joined the Community, they voted against one subsequently, and they certainly did not suggest one when they were forcing the Single European Act through the House.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I agree with what he has said. It has traditionally been the position of the Conservative party that we do not accept referendums. That was our position when my right hon. and noble Friend led the Conservatives into the Lobby in 1975. I recall that she quoted Lord Attlee's view of referendums as a device of demagogues and dictators.
On the question of subsidiarity and the Single European Act, I cannot do better than echo what my right hon. Friend has said.

Sir David Steel: Does the Prime Minister agree with the definition of subsidiarity given by the Danish Foreign Minister—that member Governments should decide what goes up to European Community level, not that the European Commission should decide what comes down to Governments?
In view of the near-hysterical remarks of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor on television yesterday, will he

make it clear that his definition of subsidiarity includes institutional reforms, more openness, more accountability and more decentralisation—and where better to begin than in Edinburgh?

The Prime Minister: I am intrigued to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, and I substantially agree with him. I am not entirely sure that the leader of his party agrees with him, but I put that to one side. We must examine all the opportunites for subsidiarity. There is no doubt that there will be different views on that matter within the Community. There is equally no doubt that we shall need to define subsidiarity very carefully because there are areas that would ensure that the Community did not function in any way unless they were dealt with at the European level. The whole House has seen illustrations of that.

Mr. John Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Court of Auditors described the recent MacSharry proposals accepted by the Agriculture Ministers as "a recipe for fraud"? In those curcumstances, is it not clear that the mechanics of administering the common agricultural policy are wholly in disarray? Do they not need the application of subsidiarity to bring about better control? Will every effort be made during my right hon. Friend's presidency of the European Community to establish ways in which the CAP can be recast consistent with his ambitions concerning subsidiarity?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend knows, at Maastricht the Court of Auditors was made a Community institution, so it is now under better control than it was previously. The common agricultural policy has been substantially reformed—a remarkable achievement on the part of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. We will continue to study whether further improvements can be made. No aspect of Community activities will be ruled out of discussion by us while we review subsidiarity.

Mr. Peter Shore: Having returned yesterday from Copenhagen, in that democratic country of Denmark, I assure the Prime Minister that there is not the slightest prospect of the Danish people changing their minds about Maastricht before the end of this year. That being so, what is the point of writing into the opening paragraphs of the communiqué the importance of ratifying the treaty so that it can come into force on 1 January 1993? Is that just hot air, or is it something more sinister—an attempt to override article 236 of the Rome treaty?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should not see plots where none exists. He makes his own judgment of what may happen in Denmark. We must wait to see what events actually occur there, and what action the Danish Government take—either saying in concrete terms to the Community, "We cannot and we will not ratify the treaty", in which case the treaty cannot proceed; or explaining to us how they intend to proceed with the ratification of the treaty. Once the Danish Government do that, we will be in a position to proceed with the ratification here.

Mr. Michael Alison: As my right hon. Friend charts the course ahead for Maastricht, will he recall that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members—certainly on this side of the House—endorse his vision of Britain at


the heart of Europe? With my right hon. Friend at the heart of Europe, we shall have not a weak heart, a hard heart, or a bleeding heart, but a stout heart—which won my right hon. Friend the last election, and which he shares with his predecessor as Prime Minister. Like him, she won many important improvements to the basis of our membership of the Community.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend that, while we remain a member of the European Community, there is no alternative to our being at its centre and exercising influence. It may be the ambition of some to leave the Community, in which case they should say so and make their position entirely clear. If that is their position, they should also explain what would happen, if we left the Community, to inward investment, jobs, prosperity, and much else.
If we are to remain in the Community, it is the overwhelming view of the House—and I believe of the country—that we need to be at its centre, exercising our influence and determining by our own efforts the direction in which the Community goes. I for one am not prepared to see this country sit on the sidelines of the European Community while other countries take decisions that determine its direction and the livelihood of every person in this country.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The declaration on South Africa rightly drew attention to the dreadful massacre in Boipatong. Does the Prime Minister accept, however, that simply asking the people to back the Conference for a Democratic South Africa is a weak response? Is it not time for a fundamental reappraisal of policy on South Africa, to compel President de Klerk to negotiate in a genuine fashion?

The Prime Minister: My understanding is that President de Klerk is prepared to negotiate, and we want negotiations to start again. In the context of what is now happening in South Africa, it is not helpful for all kinds of miscellaneous advice to appear suddenly and gratuitously, spreading the blame on one side or the other. What we need is a resumption of the talks as soon as possible.
It is all right for some to hawk their consciences around, but the impact of what happens in South Africa affects the people who are poorest. South Africa has 40 per cent. unemployment. 2 per cent. population growth and 0 per cent. growth in gross domestic product. That will not be corrected until the talks are successful, and those who sit here thinking otherwise had better examine the situation with greater care.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: How does my right hon. Friend reconcile what I think the country wants—a return of powers from Brussels to Britain—with his insistence that we go ahead and legislate for the dead treaty of union? Why does he not suggest that we withdraw the treaty now, and build on his proposals for the return of powers to Britain?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, much in the Maastricht treaty moves in the direction in which he would have the country go. It is perfectly true that both the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act involved institutional changes; but at Maastricht, for the first time, we also secured language establishing the value of intergovernmental co-operation outside the treaty of

Rome and outside the concept of the European Court of Justice. That was not in the Single European Act, but it is in the Maastricht treaty.
We also secured the formalisation of subsidiarity, on which we are still seeking to put flesh—a test to be applied to all Community competence issues. Let me repeat that: the test will be applied to all Community competence issues. That, too, was not in the Single European Act. The Act does, however, contain many of the things about which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), and some of my other hon. Friends, now complain.

Mr. Giles Radice: What progress did the Government make at Lisbon in ensuring that the Eurofed would be situated in the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: There was a discussion about sites over dinner, but the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that no agreement was reached.

Sir Peter Hordern: One of the good things to come out of the meeting was the failure to accept the European budget proposed by Mr. Delors. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the European Commission will have plenty to do in cleaning up its own house and keeping an eye on the amount of fraud that is now taking place in the Community? Will not the proposals for a new parliamentary commission of the European Parliament, under the provisions of Maastricht, help in that process, and do not those proposals—and the proposal for subsidiarity—make a very good case for the House to ratify the Maastricht treaty?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I entirely agree with him. There was strong opposition, not just from the United Kingdom but from a number of European states, to the Commission's over-ambitious proposals to increase own resources to 1.37 per cent. of gross national product by 1997. I am certain that those proposals will be rejected, and equally certain that there will be no increase in the 1.2 per cent. ceiling, at least until 1995.
Other options were discussed, including a longer period for the future own-resources perspective—perhaps seven years instead of five. A range of views was expressed in a lengthy discussion at Lisbon. The matter will need to be determined over the next six month, but we are clear about the fact that there is now plenty of room within the existing ceiling without an increase in own resources.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If the Prime Minister lost Maastricht in the House, would he consider resigning?

The Prime Minister: We shall not be losing it in the House.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be more than a little perverse for anyone concerned with national sovereignty to promote in one Parliament the Single European Act that made no provision for subsidiarity and in the next Parliament to attack the Maastricht treaty, which does include subsidiarity, as "a treaty too far"?

The Prime Minister: I think I am able to agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Derek Enright: In the context of subsidiarity, did the Prime Minister discuss how to counteract the centralised and bumbling bureaucracy that is the British Board of Trade, which has delayed RECHAR for far too long already? Did the Prime Minister go on to say that he would put that down to local government to implement?

The Prime Minister: Stressing more control over British institutions is hardly subsidiarity.

Mr. Michael Colvin: With regard to the level playing field that my right hon. Friend mentioned, does he acknowledge that, both at Maastricht and at Lisbon, he managed to move the goal posts in favour of Britain without upsetting our European partners, to the extent that they now believe that it was they who invented subsidiarity? Must that not bode well for Britain's presidency, when we shall be able to set the agenda for future meetings?

The Prime Minister: It is perfectly clear that the principle of devolving—"subsidiarity" is, we can all agree, an ugly word—means ensuring that we have a less intrusive Community and making sure that as much as is appropriate is done at the national rather than the European level. That means that the test should be that, if it cannot be done at the national level, perhaps it should be done at the European level. If it can be done best at the national level, it should be done at the national level.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the concept of subsidiarity that he is particularly fond of will be applied to the heart of the Maastricht treaty—that is, to economic and monetary union?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a decision for this House, and it will be placed before this House. Whether we go into economic and monetary union, a concept well understood in this House, will be determined by this House at an appropriate time.

Mr. George Walden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, every time the word "subsidiarity" is used in this House, we lose 99 per cent. of the audience outside, who are confused and apprehensive about its meaning? As someone who is confused and apprehensive about its meaning, I would encourage my right hon. Friend to fight for a legally binding clarification of the Maastricht treaty so that we can understand what it means.
In order to dispel the confusion and apprehension about the treaty itself, I would also suggest that my right hon. Friend should keep an open mind to a referendum on any entry into a single currency which may come about, as that is a very clear, specific and momentous issue—by far the most important part of the Maastricht treaty. Whereas I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is no case for——

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Walden: I am just finishing, Madam Speaker.
Whereas I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is no case for a referendum on the present treaty, should

there ever be any question of entry into economic and monetary union, the people must have a say on that very specific and very momentous issue.

The Prime Minister: Subsidiarity is already a legally binding issue under article 3b of the treaty. What we are seeking to do is to set out how in practice that will work, rather than simply waiting for cases to go to the European Court of Justice and for rulings at that stage. The concept of making it legally binding is already there in the Maastricht treaty. I repeat what I said a moment ago about economic and monetary union: I believe that that is a matter for Parliament and for a future Parliament.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: In view of the need for a more considered response to the baronial intervention by his predecessor, who called for a referendum on the treaty of Maastricht, does the Prime Minister not realise that he could probably keep most people happy by agreeing to hold a referendum in return for agreeing to implement the suggestion by the Tory chairman of the European Movement: that he should appoint Baroness Thatcher as Governor of the Falkland islands and dispatch her there forthwith?

The Prime Minister: I believe that we already have a governor.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. Friend further accept that now is the time to build on and to consolidate the achievements of Maastricht rather than constantly to carp and criticise, which some people are all too inclined to do? On the question of subsidiarity, may I impress on my right hon. Friend the urgent need to get a position out of the Commission and a decision out of the Council as soon as possible—preferably under his leadership during the British presidency?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on the latter point. That is precisely the remit that we have obtained. Equally, he is correct on his former point.

Mr. David Winnick: On an issue that is so vital to the sovereignty of our country, why is the Prime Minister so reluctant to allow a free vote on this side of the House? Is the reason because he is fearful of—[Laughter].

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wants a free vote on that side of the House, he had better discuss that matter with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster).

Sir Anthony Grant: On the question of a referendum, does my right hon. Friend recall that his predecessor, in opposing a referendum in 1975, not only prayed in aid the dictum of Lord Attlee but argued strongly that a referendum was contrary to parliamentary sovereignty?

The Prime Minister: I did not have the privilege of being here on that occasion, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing it to my attention.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In considering the potential for the enlargement of the Community—a goal that many of us believe is not only desirable but achievable—will the Prime Minister advise us whether the Council considered that additional protocols pertaining to


accession to the European Community will be written into the Maastricht accord, and, if so, will they he based solely on economic criteria or will other factors come into play?

The Prime Minister: No, that point was not discussed in the enlargement discussions. What was discussed was the method of preparing the mandates immediately for the Eftans and the position to be taken in respect of other countries—most notably the Visegrad countries—such as Turkey, Malta and Cyprus that have expressed interest in joining the Community. We are proposing to take all those matters forward in different ways. We must wait and see how that turns out for Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, or perhaps the Czech Lands and Slovakia. I hope that we will have a meeting between the presidency and those countries later in the year. It will clearly be many years before they are ready to become full members.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Did my right hon. Friend remind his fellow Heads of Government in Lisbon of the historic fact that, during the 1939–45 war, the Germans had to keep nine divisions in Yugoslavia, six of which were in Serbia alone, and yet still were able to maintain control of only the main roads? Comforting talk about humanitarian aid, attractive as it seems when one sees the appalling scenes in Sarajevo. should not blind any of us to the grim reality that we can hope to restore order in that part of the world only with a massive military intervention, which would inevitably lead to large-scale casualties.

The Prime Minister: I think that that point was very much in the minds of a number of us in the discussions that we had on Yugoslavia. Although concern predominantly is centering on getting humanitarian aid into Sarajevo airport. unless there is a ceasefire that is likely to be an extremely hazardous and difficult operation. But even if the humanitarian aid arrives in the airport, that is not the end of the matter; it will then have to be taken, presumably by the Red Cross, to areas where it is needed, and military escorts may be needed to safeguard the position of the Red Cross. This is an extremely difficult and hazardous undertaking and it is being discussed by the United Nations—I believe, even as we speak.

Mr. David Alton: Notwithstanding the difficulty of putting large numbers of troops on the ground, does the Prime Minister agree that the establishment of a sky sheild—an area free from bombardment for civilians—would be one way of trying to save lives? Would not he like to see an extension of his idea of safe havens for the Kurds? Will he discuss that with his European colleagues? Did President Mitterrand discuss his visit to Sarajevo with the Prime Minister before he left?

The Prime Minister: I believe that he discussed it with none of the other Heads of Government, as far as I am aware, before he left. I am certainly not aware that he did so.
The idea of air cover is certainly one that has been considered. It is, of course, extremely hazardous. The bombing and mortaring of people in and around Sarajevo is being done from the land, not from the air, so air cover would not necessarily prevent it. However, air cover would be a juicy target for missiles from the ground if anyone were tempted to aim at them. It is an extremely difficult proposition. Of course, we also considered the prospect of

an air drop of supplies, but that also has great logistical difficulties, and we were not advised to proceed with that course.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the agreement on European money was a mere holding operation? Will he also confirm that, if there has to be a continuance of a fixed exchange rate moving towards a single currency, it demands convergence, and that convergence in its turn demands the free movement of people—namely, the abolition of all immigration controls within the European Community and a massive increase in regional and social funds?

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend believes all that, I can understand why he is so opposed to it. I do not believe all that. As for it being a mere holding operation, it was an agreement that there was no agreement to be had. We and others could not agree the proposals put forward at the weekend, and we must now discuss them to see whether agreement can be reached by the time of Edinburgh. That is the way one normally reaches an agreement—through negotiation over time.

Mr. John McAllion: Since the Prime Minister now claims to champion the principle of subsidiarity, will he explain to the House why he does so so enthusiastically for the United Kingdom within the European union while ignoring it completely for Scotland within the British Union?

The Prime Minister: We are a single united kingdom.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that it has taken this country about 50 years to be accepted as a leading player in the European Community? Is it not sad that, on the very eve of our taking the presidency, in our best position for years, with the twin themes of subsidiarity and enlargement on our lips as we do so, there are still those among us who wish to hark back to the glorious days of Britain's history which are no longer relevant in the late 1990s?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that there are very few Conservative Members and. I suspect, very few—if any—hon. Members who want to see a centralised European Community and the nightmare prospect proposed by some of a central European state. We do not want it, it will not happen and it is an unreal prospect—the stuff of nightmares for a few people—but if we wish to build the sort of Europe that this House wants, we can do so only if we play a full part in the decision-making process and do not, by our own actions, marginalise ourselves on areas of discussion where decisions need to be taken now.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Prime Minister explain, if he believes in honest negotiation, on what basis he will negotiate with the four applicants, Switzerland, Finland and so on—on the basis of Maastricht being agreed or on the basis of Maastricht not being agreed? If it is the former, why does he not have the courage to put the Bill before the House now, or is he merely playing for time?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening earlier. The preparation of the mandates is on the basis of Maastricht being agreed. That is the working


assumption under which all the negotiations will take place. In due course, when Maastricht is agreed, the official negotiations can start. It is quite possible that not only the mandates but unofficial discussions towards accession to the Community can take place before ratification of the treaty, but the formal accession of any new state could not take place until after the Maastricht treaty is ratified.

Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the whole House would wish to thank him and his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—the whole House—for pointing out the dangers of the situation in Yugoslavia? He has made it clear that command and control in Yugoslavia is vested in the United Nations. During the months of the presidency, will my right hon. Friend ensure that that is made clear to every member of the Community? We are all working in the same army for the same aim, but under one single command and control.

The Prime Minister: I will seek to make that clear. As my hon. Friend said, we may not carry the whole House with us, but perhaps we carry the whole of the thinking part of the House with us.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: While, Muggins-like, Britain goes along with sanctions against Libya, the Italians cheerfully turn a blind eye to their relations with Libya and to any obligations they have given. What consideration is the Prime Minister giving to the letter from Mr. John Lace, the managing director of Babcock and Wilcox, who argues that thousands of jobs may be involved in various propositions from the British engineering industry in Libya? Why should we lose out on them when our partners are not keeping to any agreements that may have been made?

The Prime Minister: Without necessarily accepting the premise on which the hon. Gentleman launched his question, I have seen the letter from Babcock and Wilcox to which he refers. I will take the opportunity to discuss that with the new Italian Prime Minister, Mr. Amato, when I meet him at Munich in a few days' time.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Given that the people of this country have no faith or confidence whatever in the pocket Napoleon who has been running the Commission for the past eight years, is it not insensitive, to say the least, for our European colleagues to force him on us for the next two years? Or is Machiavelli at work—are they trying to ensure that the British people throw out the wretched treaty with the referendum which is becoming increasingly desirable, necessary and relevant?

The Prime Minister: There was only one candidate for the presidency of the Commission. There was no other candidate around who was credible and who would have been likely to have the support of any other nation state at the summit. It would have been perfectly possible. if we had thought it desirable, for us to put forward a different candidate. He—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Or she."]—or she would have had no prospect of success, and he or she would have needed to be an existing member of the Commission. There is no point is getting out of the frying pan and stepping straight into the fire.

Mr. Stuart Bell: The House will have noticed the Prime Minister's reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in relation to unemployment. Will he not accept that it is hardly any solace for those losing their jobs to learn that the rate of unemployment is rising faster in Spain than it is here, or that the only Government proposal to bring down unemployment is the successful conclusion to the GATT round? As the presidency begins on 1 July, will the Prime Minister give the House a categorical assurance that he will make the fall of unemployment a high priority within the exchange rate mechanism?

The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure what that last point means. I simply corrected the point of fact made by the Leader of the Opposition, and I also made the point, if I remember accurately, that I did not necessarily suggest that we had unemployment rising at the rate we would like. Clearly we would like to see it fall: I do not deny that for a moment. I was correcting the simple factual point about unemployment. Although it is an important matter, it falls within a wide parameter of policies. It is not necessarily a matter that can be determined by Europewide policies at a European Council meeting.

Mr. Ray Whitney: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his exchanges with his colleagues at Lisbon further demonstrated that there is growing support throughout Europe for the concept of a Community which is effective and united, but which is not unnecessarily centralist?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has defined precisely the sense of the meeting at Lisbon on Friday and Saturday. There is a strong feeling, not just among politicians, people in this country and people in Denmark, but in a number of other countries, against excessive centralisation. That was reflected in our debates in Lisbon.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Prime Minister has told us that he is seeking a definition of subsidiarity. Does he agree that such a definition should be inserted in article 3b? Contrary to popular belief, it is not yet there. Does he agree that, to make it a practical reality and to make it justiciable, as it must be in the end, there must be some suggestion of a separation of powers? However, is not the separation of powers the hallmark of a federal constitution, which the Prime Minister says he wishes to avoid?

The Prime Minister: The definition is there in article 3b, as I said earlier. It is therefore justiciable, and I am happy to confirm that again to the hon. Gentleman. We have the definition. We are seeking to put flesh, in practical working terms, on the definition that already exists and is already justiciable.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the one thing that my constituents are very clear about is that they do not want to see the surrender of any more important powers by the Westminster Parliament to the European Community? If that is what we mean by subsidiarity, is it not time that it was better and more clearly defined, so that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take the British people with him at the end of his successful presidency?

The Prime Minister: As I said a little earlier, I share my hon. and learned Friend's implicit view that "subsidiarity"


is not a very attractive term. We need to find a way of expressing it that will make it readily understood by people up and down the country so that they are aware of what it means and how it will operate. I am open to any helpful proposals on that point, but we shall be considering it further.

Mr. Peter Hain: When the Prime Minister bullied the Baroness Thatcher into signing the exchange rate mechanism or the European monetary system, did she insist to him then, as she did yesterday, that the pound was set at far too high a level?

The Prime Minister: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman has not met my noble Friend.

Mr. William Powell: The emphasis that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister laid upon the successful conclusion of the GATT round is most welcome. Does he agree that nothing would give the world economy a greater boost or boost confidence as well as economic activity than the successful conclusion of the GATT round? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend urge the French President to show the same generosity in solving the GATT problems as he is showing in trying to solve the difficulties in Sarajevo, by reaching a satisfactory compromise over 300,000 tonnes of grain?

The Prime Minister: That is an extremely fair point, which has not been lost upon the European leaders. The point has been made to those holding up the agreement at present. Quite apart from the growth of world trade that would follow and apart from the helpful effect that that would also have on unemployment, it would be an immense help to the developing countries and the less-developed countries to have a GATT agreement that opens the richer markets of the west to those countries. There is no point in us handing out sums of aid with one hand and effectively taking them away with closed markets with the other.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: With regard to Yugoslavia, is the European Community sure that, although the sanctions against Milosevic are justified and may bring about a change in Serbia, they will lead to peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina'? Do not Presidents Izetbegovic and Tudjman have some responsibility for what is happening in that part of the world? What pressure is the Community placing on them—or is the even-handed approach by the British Government before 19 January being thrown away in order to achieve concessions on Maastricht?

The Prime Minister: There are two points in relation to the important points raised by the hon. Gentleman. First, we are putting pressure on President Tudjman as well. Secondly, we are seeking to persuade the Serbs to assert control over the Serbs in Bosnia. That is the substantive point.

Mr. Robert Adley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his comments in his opening statement about coolness and commitment are widely shared by a high proportion of his colleagues alongside and behind him? Does he agree that the cacophony of inconsistency from down the Corridor is a sign that very rarely are the best wines made with sour grapes?

The Prime Minister: We need to look very carefully at precisely how we carry the debate forward. It is critical that we get the right conclusions from the debate and that we ratify a treaty which for the first time begins to turn back a centralising trend which was evident in the treaty of Rome and in the Single European Act, and which became more evident as time passed. We are now in a position to begin to turn that tide back. It would be folly if we were to sideline ourselves when we have an opportunity to achieve that.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the Prime Minister must have seen weekend reports that, if Maastricht were not ratified by the House, he would resign. I am sure that he agrees that it would be quite wrong to raise the hopes of the British people on the basis of a false premise, but, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's determination to sweep away the cobwebs of government, will he come clean on this matter and tell us whether, if Maastricht is not ratified, he will resign?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raises his question on a false premise, which is exactly what he said he would not wish to do—it is going to be ratified. As one of my hon. Friends indicated a moment ago, the hon. Gentleman may have overlooked it, but we had the largest single popular vote in the previous election that any Government have ever received.

Sir Teddy Taylor: While the Prime Minister and our new friend Mr. Jacques Delors may be entirely confident that this matter is going to go through without difficulty and with the free will of members, does he accept that there is an important democratic issue when a Bill is put through without a free vote, without a referendum, and without the people of the country being told what is involved when there is a major surrender or a major passing over of freedom and liberty? If he doubts that, should we not take a message from the sad countries of eastern Europe about the tragedy of forcing people to go into a single centralised state with common citizenship and without frontiers, without being consulted at all? Surely there is a case for at least looking at telling the people and asking their views.

The Prime Minister: No one fights more fiercely for parliamentary control in this country than my hon. Friend. With my great respect for him, I find it inconsistent that such a firm advocate of the parliamentary system should also be an advocate of referendums. I believe that the parliamentary system is right. It is the way in which we took through legislation in the past on constitutuional matters. It is the way in which we took through the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. This Bill has already been debated, before I went to Maastricht and after I came back, for a longer period than that spent discussing the Single European Act, and that is before we enter the Committee stage.

Mr. Win Griffiths: In the context of subsidiarity, will the Prime Minister confirm that there is no truth in the rumours that environmental policy is to be repatriated to the nation state and that, instead, in his presidency he will give priority to the creation of a


European environmental agency to make sure that important, cross-boundary environmental matters are properly tackled?

The Prime Minister: It is agreed that there should be a European environmental agency, and it has been for some time. What has not been agreed is where the European environmental agency should be sited. That, too, failed to find itself a matter of agreement over the weekend.

Mr. James Paice: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's dedication to the concept of enlargement of the Community, so that, one day, we will get to the stage at which Europe really means Europe? Is it not clear that a Community of 15 or 20 more states can exist only on the basis of individual agreements and pillars—precisely the sort of Europe envisaged at Maastricht?

The Prime Minister: Yes. They have agreed to apply on the basis of the Maastricht treaty being agreed. That opens, of course, the option of intergovernmental agreement, as I said earlier, rather than simply agreement under the treaty of Rome. No doubt, over time as the Community enlarges, there will be further agreements and, no doubt, further institutional change. We must make sure that we are sufficiently influential in the Community to ensure that the institutional change that takes place and the future agreements that may be necessary are agreements and changes of which we approve.

Mr. Jimmy Boyce: Would the Prime Minister be kind enough to tell us whether, when he refers to workers' rights, he means an end to the practice of employers unilaterally de-recognising trade unions, reneging on properly negotiated rates of pay and pay rises, and coercing workers into signing new contracts of employment that mean that they have to work longer hours for basic rates of pay?

The Prime Minister: None of those matters was discussed over the weekend.

Sir Michael Marshall: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the discussions that have taken place about the parliamentary assize, the group of the 12 Parliaments plus the European Parliament, is a process that will be pursued during our presidency? Does my right hon. Friend accept that that should be an added safeguard in the matter of subsidiarity?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we shall certainly process the prospect of a further meeting of that sort. Agreements between Parliaments, rather than just between members of the European Parliament and individual Governments, is an attractive way to proceed. I do not anticipate a meeting of the assize during the next six months, but we shall do the ground work and preparation for one to take place thereafter.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The Prime Minister will be aware that his predecessor has called subsidiarity "gobbledegook". Early-day motion 240 gives a more sophisticated analysis of what is wrong with subsidiarity. If subsidiarity is to begin to have a constitutional meaning and legal definition, and is not simply to be determined by the courts in a broad sweep, its definition comes close to the concept of federalism.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have spent some time in the past hour discussing precisely that point and the necessity of ensuring that a proper definition of subsidiarity is more clear-cut to everyone, including the man and woman in the street, than the definition found in article 3b of the treaty.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Statutory Instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

PETROCHEMICAL PLANTS (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Oil Related and Petrochemical Plants (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

HORTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

That the draft Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

FOOD PROTECTION

That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Dioxins) (England) (No. 2) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 1274). dated 1st June 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd June be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill

New Clause 1—Pensions (consultation)—
'.—Before exercising the powers under section I in so far as they affect pensions. and relevant Corporation and the Secretary of State shall consult those members of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme Committee of Management who represent the workforce and the Contributors' Committee Members of the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme on the appointment of advisers and shall not appoint any such adviser without their consent.'.—[Mr. Dobson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 3—Changes to British Coal Corporation pension schemes—
'.—Except in the case where the Secretary of State lays before both Houses of Parliament a statement certifying that such change is for the protection of the interests of the members and beneficiaries, no change shall he made to the Mineworkers Pension Scheme of the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme except by statutory instrument; and such instrument shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
New clause 7—Pensions (consultation)—
'.—Before exercising the powers under section 1 in so far as they affect pensions, any relevant Corporation and the Secretary of State shall consult those members of the British Rail Pension Scheme and the British Rail Superannuation Fund committees of management who represent the workforce on the appointment of advisers and shall not appoint any such adviser without their consent.',
New clause 8—Changes to British Railways Board pension schemes—
'.—Except in the case where the Secretary of State lays before both Houses of Parliament a statement certifying that such change is for the protection of the interests of the members and beneficiaries, no change shall he made to the British Rail Pension Scheme or the British Rail Superannuation Fund except by statutory instrument; and such instrument shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
New clause 9—Colliery welfare organisations—
'.—Before exercising the powers under section 2 in so far as they affect land on buildings owned by, or held in trust for, any Colliery Welfare organisation, any relevant Corporation and the Secretary of State shall consult both the representatives of such Colliery Welfare organisations and the local authority.'

Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move, That the new clause be read a Second time.
All the new clauses are about the pensions of people who used to work or still work for British Coal and British Rail. They seek to protect the rights of pensioners and potential pensioners of those companies. The new clauses are, therefore, important to existing pensioners, widows and children who benefit from the pensions, and the substantial number of people who work for British Coal and British Rail and still pay into those pension schemes. In any sensible society, those people should be entitled to feel that their pensions are secure. But they do not feel that they are secure. The House is under an obligation to offer them the protection that they do not have at present.
The Government's record on pensions is literally scandalous. Under the Government, we have proceeded

from one scandal to the next. Each time there is a pension scandal, they wring their hands, express concern, promise action and then do nothing. Even on the odd occasion when they do something, their action is too late. It is usually described as closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, although more often these days the horse did not bolt but was stolen from the stable and written off by some pinstriped highwayman from the City of London. Those latter-day Dick Turpins are always one jump ahead of the law enforcement officers and 10 jumps ahead of the law.
We are obliged to try to ensure that the law offers the protection that it has failed to offer to legions of other pensioners. It is about time Parliament took some action on pensions before, not after, a scandal—it is usually known as a spot of intelligent anticipation.
The new clauses are designed to protect the interests of pensioners, to protect their pension funds and to give pensioners and people still paying into the funds some confidence that, in these difficult times, they will get the pensions to which they believe they are entitled.
Pensioners have good reason to be concerned. The British Coal pension funds total more than £12 billion—perhaps 10 times the value that the Government will eventually place on the assets of the company itself. These funds represent different things to different people. To the pensioners and widows they represent their income—the money that pays the bills. To the people working for British Coal or, for that matter, British Rail these pension funds represent their future security.
Two other groups, however, have their eye on these funds. To the potential purchasers of British Coal that £12 billion represent a kitty. If we and the pensioners—not to mention the people running the pension schemes—are not careful these funds will represent swag for the thieving people in the City who have already stolen so much from Britain's pensioners.
Hitherto the Government have merely offered a few assurances. I am sure that Robert Maxwell would have given assurances. So would Barlow Clowes have offered assurances that its investments were sound. I am sure that the people at Belling would have told their employees that their pensions were safe and were not being invested in the company by a circuitous route. I am sure that when Hanson bought Imperial Tobacco it told its pensioners that their pensions were safe. Anyone who believes such assurances now is flying in the face of experience. Assurances are no longer enough.

Mr. Ian McCartney: When Hanson was trying to buy Imperial Tobacco the staff did not believe its assurances and went to court to protect themselves.

Mr. Dobson: Yes, indeed, but my hon. Friend will agree that they had to go as far as the House of Lords to protect themselves, and that vulnerable groups such as pensioners should not have to do that. It is up to the House of Commons to offer them the protection to which they believe they are entitled and which they deserve.
Even under present law, pensioners and people paying into these schemes are unhappy about what is happening and they see money being taken away from them. The miners pension scheme has funds of more than £6 billion, out of which it has to pay 160,000 pensioners and more than 100,000 widows—and 260,000 other former miners expect to get what are called deferred pensions when they


are old enough to be entitled to them. There are fewer than 50,000 working miners paying into the scheme. British Coal decided that the fund was in such surplus that some of it could be disposed of. As the fund was set up to benefit pensioners, one might have thought that the first call on the funds would be to increase pensions now or in the future; but that was not British Coal's top priority. It gave itself a contributions holiday, so that it will make no employers' contributions to the miners pension scheme until the year 2001.
That holiday is worth more than £423 million to British Coal. However, it is intended to benefit not British Coal but whoever buys it when it is privatised. All that is legal, all above board, but it is all a loss to the pensioners, because the benefit will be passed to the shareholders of the new company or companies that will own British Coal. No wonder workers and pensioners in the industry want some reassurance about what will happen when privatisation is under way. Our new clauses seek to give workers, pensioners and their representatives some say in the appointment of advisers to the Government and the companies during privatisation.
As we all know, privatisation involves vast numbers of City advisers. If my memory serves me correctly, in one way or another more than 230 companies advised either the Government or the companies on electricity privatisation, and some of them advised both. That advice cost the taxpayer about £230 million. Such investment in advice cannot be justified unless we can be convinced of the propriety, honesty, wit, intelligence and professional competence of those who are getting the money. Who might the pensioners not want looking into their pensions? In view of the recent scandals, pensioners would not want any advice to the Government or the companies from anybody who was involved in any way in the Maxwell pension scandal.

Mr. Bill Etherington: My hon. Friend speaks about advisers that pensioners might not want. They might not want that outfit masquerading as a trade union, the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. That outfit sided with British Coal to ensure a contributions holiday that will last to the turn of the century. I hope that that will never be forgotten.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Unfortunately, a UDM representative voted with the management on the miners' pension scheme committee in favour of a pension holiday. It was a rather curious decision.
The point to remember about the Maxwell scandal is that Robert Maxwell did not do it all by himself. Money cannot be moved around and in and out of the City and in and out of Liechtenstein or anywhere else without people such as accountants, auditors, banks and merchant banks—and all sorts of people who make their living by movements of money through their institutions—noticing what is going on. They carefully log such movements, because, by and large, they get a percentage of every movement.
The people who noticed such movements of money fall into two categories—those who took part and those who averted their gaze. I do not think that miners or railway workers would want advice from people in either category.
Any institutions or persons who did not notice what Maxwell was up to are too stupid and incompetent to advise on the future of miners' pensions or railway staff pensions. Pensions for miners or railway workers should not be left in the hands of those who failed to prevent the pillage of the Maxwell pensioners.
We offered some help to the Government in their pursuit of the missing Maxwell millions. We suggested that they should demand from anyone whom they were considering appointing as an adviser on this matter a certificate from the Secretary of State for Social Security showing that, as the Secretary of State had requested, the certificate holder had done everything in his power to help the Maxwell pensioners get their money hack. If the licence holder had any of the money, he would need a certificate to say that he had paid it back. That is known in the business as an incentive and it should be passed into law.

Mr. Robert Adley: There is not much reference to that in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman said, "We offered some help to the Government" for the Maxwell pensioners to get their money back. Will the hon. Gentleman define what he means by "we"? At great cost to itself, the National Westminster bank has decided to return money to the pension funds. Presumably the hon. Gentleman can assure me that the Mr. Maxwell of whom we are speaking was a former Labour Member of Parliament and that the Labour party received money from the Maxwell organisation. When the hon. Gentleman says "we-, does he mean the Labour party and, if so, does Labour propose to return that money, however small the total amount, as a gesture of good faith towards the Maxwell pensioners?

Mr. Dobson: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is dwelling unduly on matters relating to a clause that has not been selected.

Mr. Dobson: The clause that has not been selected——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Never mind what she says.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The selection of clauses and amendments is made by Madam Speaker, not by me.

Mr. Dobson: I have no intention of dwelling on our new clause which was not selected. I was in the process of moving on before the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) intervened. I do not give a damn which political party Robert Maxwell came from. He was a villain and he stole from pensioners. But he must have done that with the connivance of innumerable City individuals and institutions, because he could not have done it by himself.

Mr. Skinner: The Tories are speaking about Maxwell, but one of their clan, Peter Walker, picked up £450,000 for working for three months for a Maxwell organisation and took a Mercedes car worth about £50,000. That happened last year when Maxwell was fiddling the pension funds. Walker should send the money to those desperate Maxwell pensioners. That is what the Tories should be calling for.

Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
The Government recently announced the appointment of Department of Trade and Industry inspectors to investigate, not the Maxwell pension scandal but the flotation of Mirror Group Newspapers. Linklaters and Paines, and Clifford Chance, solicitors; Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte, the reporting accountants; Salomon Brothers International, the underwriters; the merchant bankers Samuel Montagu; and stockbrokers Smith New Court were all involved in that flotation, and are all being investigated by DTI inspectors.
The DTI is one of the two sponsoring Ministries behind the Bill. We would expect it to agree with us that none of the companies being investigated by the Department of Trade and Industry should be entitled, while under investigation, to be appointed as advisers to the Government, British Coal or British Rail on this matter of privatisation and in particular on the matter of pensions.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Let him without sin cast the first stone. Many Conservative Members have interests in the City and are involved in all sorts of deals that take money from the pockets of those who invest their pounds and 50ps in the City. Is it not correct that the DTI is also involved, in that it was aware that Maxwell was an unfit person but never acted on that knowledge and allowed the robbery of the pensioners to continue?

Mr. Dobson: I cannot claim to understand all the detailed ramifications of how deeply the DTI or other Departments were involved in various aspects of the fiddles, but it is fairly unlikely that, in about two decades' time, when the various investigatory machines have finally completed their business, any Department will come out with a clean bill of health. We are pretty sure that it will be a long time before any conclusions are reached.
The DTI has established its investigation into the floatation of Mirror Group Newspapers. Presumably, it expects that investigation to be taken seriously. Everyone believes that if a DTI inspector makes a serious criticism of a company or individual in its report, the matter should be taken seriously. We believe that the miners and the railway workers wish to make sure that DTI inspections are indeed taken seriously, in view of the wisdom and foresight of the DTI inspectors, who in 1971 said of Mr. Maxwell that, in their view, he was not
a person who could be relied upon to exercise proper stewardship of a publicly quoted company.
How wise they were. We would go beyond that and say that, in order to protect the interests of the miners and the railway workers, and in particular those of pensioners, no company or individual who has been criticised by a formal DTI inspection in its published report should be entitled to advise on the pensions of either the miners or the railway workers.
Unfortunately, that leads us to what can only be described as the sad and lengthy roll call of the Government's advisers. Coopers and Lybrand, which incidentally was the auditor of Mirror Group Newspapers and its pension fund, and which, during the process of electricity privatisation, had no fewer than 19 advisory contracts, was criticised in a DTI report on the Milford Docks Company.
Ernst and Young, and its predecessor, were involved in advising the Government and the electricity supply industry—it got four advisory contracts out of electricity privatisation—and has been criticised in no fewer than six

published DTI reports. It is also the auditor to British Coal and the British Coal pension scheme, which is in direct contravention of the recommendation of the Select Committee on Social Security that it is improper for any organisation to be the auditor of both company accounts and pension scheme accounts.

Mr. Redmond: So that we are sure on this, will my hon. Friend tell the House which party was in power when those criticisms were made?

Mr. Dobson: I must confess to my hon. Friend that I do not have the date of all six of the reports into Ernst and Young.
The distinguished company of James Capel had only one advisory contract during the process of electricity privatisation but was criticised in the case of Consolidated Gold Fields. Kleinwort Benson, which was the Government's principal adviser on electricity privatisation and had four other contracts, was criticised, as everybody who was a Member of Parliament at the time will remember, in the House of Fraser DTI report.
Peat Marwick McLintock, the accountants, had three electricity advisory contracts and was criticised in the Alexander Howden Holdings case and the Orbit Holdings case. Price Waterhouse, another firm of city accountants, had no fewer than 23 advisory contracts on electricity privatisation, and it has been criticised in the public reports of two DTI inspections, into Norwest Holst and Raymor Investments. Spicer and Oppenheim, its predecessor, which had five advisory contracts on electricity privatisation, was criticised over the Aldermanbury Trust. Smith New Court, of which Lord Walker, who has been mentioned already, is a director, had three advisory contracts on electricity privatisation and was criticised, along with James Capel, over the Consolidated Gold Fields case.
Lest any Conservative Members suggest that these might be trivial or glancing criticisms, I will quote one or two examples of the criticisms levelled at companies that have been on the Government's list up to now, because I do not think that they are trivial. In the Consolidated Gold Fields case, the inspectors said:
We consider that Smith New Court seriously hindered the company's attempt to pursue its right under section 212. with a view to identifying who had been buying a substantial number of its shares.
It went on to say, and this is probably the most damning aspect:
Moreover, we consider that Smith New Court did not understand their responsibilities under the Act and did not make any serious attempt to take proper legal advice.
No organisation criticised in that way should be supervising any pension scheme or be involved in any way. Similar criticisms were levied at James Capel.

Mr. Stephen Milligan: The hon. Gentleman lists the shortcomings of these advisory companies, but will he add to the list the name of Mr. Arthur Scargill who, during the miners' strike, shifted money from one account to another with great freedom? Perhaps it would not be a good idea if, as suggested in the new clause, the National Union of Mineworkers had a prime role in giving advice in the future.

Mr. Dobson: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Arthur Scargill will not be appearing in court, which is something


that distinguishes him from a large number of people who were involved in the Maxwell scandal, and who, if there were any justice in the world, would be appearing in court.
The DTI said about Ernst and Young:
In our view, the auditors failed to carry out their responsibilities as auditors.
The company had been appointed as auditors and was criticised for not carrying out its duties. Such auditors should not be allowed anywhere near the miners and railway workers pension schemes. The report of the investigation into Raymor Investments said:
Price Waterhouse's conduct as regards the non-executive directors and the incoming auditors is indefensible.
Should any organisation whose conduct described as indefensible be further employed by the Government, by British Coal or by British Rail? We would not want them supervising our pensions and we should not want them involved, in any way, in looking after someone else's.
5 pm
In the case of the House of Fraser and the al-Fayeds, there is probably no more damning statement to be found in any Department of Trade and Industry report than the comment that was made not just about Kleinworts and Herbert Smith, Government advisers, or Lazard's, Government advisers, or Morgan Grenfell, Government advisers, than the words:
So far as we know, not one of the advisers appears to have inquired at all critically into the Fayeds' background and bona fides.
There could be no worse criticism of people appointed to look into things critically and to advise than that they never did their job.
We believe that none of these organisations should be allowed anywhere near the giving of any advice about the privatisation of either the coal industry or the electricity industry. What is more, we wonder who maintains this list of advisers and what criteria are applied before people's action, or inaction, is so bad that they are removed from the list. What do they have to do? Get involved in shifting money from Hong Kong into Tory party funds and then losing the money, or something like that? That appears to be the only thing that might prompt the Government to think that they were not up to their job.

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend wonders how advisers come to be removed from the list. If they stop contributing to the Tory party, they are removed.
The president of the National Union of Mineworkers has been mentioned. Perhaps he ought to be one of the advisers. Arthur would want to ensure that miners had adequate pensions. Despite the vilification, the president of the National Union of Mineworkers has been completely exonerated of any dirty tricks. The House ought to be aware that he has been completely exonerated of any fiddling of pension funds or NUM money. The so-called pension advisers in the City ought to have a look at Arthur's track record with a view to achieving the standards that he has set for himself.

Mr. Dobson: I can say only that if advisers were to look into a situation, it is unlikely, on the basis of what I have just read out, that they would notice anything.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have been listening very carefully to the comments of my

hon. Friend. I am not sure that he quite understands the reasons behind the privatisation, and that concerns me slightly. One of his problems, I think, is that he seriously suspects that advice is taken from private firms in order to facilitate the movement of assets from the state system into private pockets. The point is that there should be an ever more rapid movement of money from the state to the friends of the Conservative party. The view that these people are employed to give independent advice does not correspond with the facts.

Mr. Dobson: I have to confess that I have always had the old-fashioned view that the public business of the country should be conducted with honesty and in the interests of the people of the country rather than for the benefit exclusively of the Conservative party and its friends. However, I have become more and more disillusioned over the years.
In view of everything that has appeared in print or has been heard on television and radio. it is clear that any sensible miner or any sensible person working for British Rail must be concerned about what has happened to his pension fund. These people have read about Maxwell, about Imperial Tobacco and about Belling. Today I received a letter from someone who works for British Telecom. That person tells me that it looks as though the company is into contribution holidays and changes in schemes, to the advantage of the shareholders and the disadvantage of the pensioners and people paying in. I have not had time to investigate the ins and outs of the matter, but I am quite prepared to believe that these changes have been made.
Our new clauses are intended to secure from the Government agreement that no one will be appointed to advise on the pensions of the miners or the railway workers unless the Governments and the companies get the consent of the representatives of the work force—and I mean the entire work force.
Our amendments would provide that any change in a pension scheme required the consent of Parliament. Conservative Members have been fairly willing to agree to almost anything in recent times. I live in hope that if our proposal is accepted, or if the Government bring forward an amendment of their own, even the present Conservative party will be unwilling, up front, to vote for something that is to the total disadvantage of pensioners.
I hope that the Government will accept either the amendments or the spirit of the amendments. I come back to a point that I made at the beginning: it will be no good if, in three or four years' time, people come here and bleat about pensioners being robbed, as that could be stopped by action taken today. Bleating afterwards is not good enough any more. Any group of pensioners is entitled to the protection of this House, and that is what should be provided tonight.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret having to intervene with a point of order at this stage, but I seek your advice. Today an all-party delegation from the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority met the Minister for Public Transport. the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), to discuss the West Yorkshire electrification scheme. The main problen associated with the scheme arises from the anxiety of financial institutions about the effect of privatisation on the transport authority and about


whether, if they were to underwrite a leasing agreement for new rolling stock, they would be able to secure repayment of any loans.
I should like to know whether it would be in order for hon. Members, in the debate on new clause 5, to make brief comments on this matter, in the hope that the Minister for Public Transport would be able to report to the House on the present situation. That new clause refers to rights and liabilities. Or would it be more suitable for brief interventions to be made during the Third Reading debate, which, I understand is to take place later tonight?

Madam Deputy Speaker: We have not yet reached new clause 5. I shall consider the points that the hon. Member has made, but there is no need to give an immediate answer.

Mr. Redmond: As this is the first opportunity I have had to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your election to the Chair. I am confident that you will do an excellent job. Indeed, it is widely accepted in the House that you are doing an excellent job.
It was said during the Second Reading debate and in Committee, and it must be said again, that there ought to be two Bills—one dealing with British Rail and one with British Coal. But we are quite used to the manipulation of Ministers with a view to shoving business through as quickly as possible. The Minister's approach has been that the Government and the Opposition agree in principle with regard to the proposals in the Bill. For a long time, I have not accepted that, when we agree in principle, we can sort out the details later.
I am confident that the Minister's office thinks that that applies to this privatisation legislation. If that is so, it should have been discussed on Second Reading arid in Committee, and certainly it should be discussed this evening. The problem is that the Minister simply sits back. He has an outline structure—possibly even the details—of the proposed privatisation, yet hon. Members on both sides of the House are fishing in the dark trying to understand what is happening.
I oppose the holiday that British Coal is taking from the pension scheme. It was agreed to on the casting vote of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. The National Union of Mineworkers was opposed to it and did not participate. I do not understand why the Minsiter is not using his good offices in this matter. He gives assurances that future pension rights will be protected and that there is no need to worry because everything is wonderful, yet he is taking part in a manipulation by British Coal of the pension fund that will rob many of my constituents, who are ex-members of the coal industry, of many pounds. He should step on the toes of British Coal's chairman and bring their cosy relationship to an end.
I think it appropriate to mention the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. It came about through a venture between the workers and British Coal. Over the years, the workers contributed tuppences and threepences week in, week out to bring facilities to mining villages—not just for the enjoyment of the miners and their family, but for the enjoyment of the whole community. Because of that, many mining villages have excellent facilities.
We are a little concerned about what will happen to CISWO's assets if British Coal is privatised. It must be remembered that those assets belong not to British Coal, but to the community. I hope that today the Minister will

give a categoric assurance that CISWO lands and schemes—be they cricket, bowling, football or welfare—will not be sold, but will be transferred free of charge to local authorities. I am sure that the Minister is aware that many local authorities are strapped for cash and are having a heck of a job trying to maintain statutory services. They will not have the money to purchase CISWO's lands and schemes from British Coal.
The point should be made that it is not just British Coal that has contributed to the schemes—over the years, the lads and lasses have brought those facilities to the communities for the enjoyment of the people. From British Coal's actions so far, it seems that it will want to exploit those schemes for the benefit of the new private owners. British Coal has a large amount of land, but when members of the public want to purchase any of it, British Coal charges property development prices—that is, it' it is prepared to sell at all.
I am sure that the same thing will happen with coal privatisation as happened when the water industry was privatised. There was a piece of land in Warmsworth village where people had tended allotments for many years. Suddenly, the water board wanted them off that land, because it thought that it could get planning consent for development. The same may happen with British Coal. Instead of benefiting the nation and the lads and lasses who spent many years in the coal industry, the new owners will want to dispose of the land to make fat profits for its board and the shareholders. That has happened in other privatised industries. I hope that the Minister will assure us this afternoon that that will not happen with the coal privatisation.
5.15 pm
Concessionary coal is part of the right of the lads and the lasses in the coal industry. Six pits in Yorkshire have protected rights. They include Rossington. which is my patch, and Caeleby—which is closed—in the Don valley constituency. They have protected rights over and above the usual concessionary coal agreement. Will the Minister give an assurance that irrespective of who owns the industry, those rights will he protected? I hope that no one—for example, Fairclough or Monktonhall—will try to take on the industry as a single venture. Unless there are long-term markets, there is no long-term security.
Those six pits in Yorkshire have a right to the same protection as they had prior to privatisation. I hope that any agreement on privatisation will give the lads and lasses of those pits full protection under the law against exploitation. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the points that I have made.

Mr. John Heppell: I declare an interest as, at some stage in the future, I may have the opportunity to benefit from a railway pension. I am therefore pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is looking after my interests so well.
I am disappointed by the Bill. My first reason is on political grounds, as I do not like the idea of privatisation. whatever it might mean for the railways. Nevertheless, I recognise reality. The Tories won the election and they are committed to privatisation. Unfortunately, the Bill is not clear about anything else. What does it tell hon. Members, the management of British Rail, the work force and the passengers? Alas, it is very little.
My second reason for disappointment is that, in the absence of a White Paper, the Bill is causing confusion and uncertainty throughout the country and especially among the work force and pensioners of British Rail. The Bill is not a blank sheet, it is a blank cheque—but for the benefit of the Government, not the pensioners. That is shown by the catch-all phrase in clause 1 that British Rail be given
the power to do anything which in their opinion is appropriate for the purpose of … facilitating the implementation of
the Government proposals.
That means that it can do exactly as it likes. The Bill suggests that private locomotives and wagons could run on BR track, but that already happens. I am therefore confused about the Bill's purpose. If it confuses me, it must confuse even more BR's existing work force and pensioners. The work force will have to make the changes work—once it is known what those changes are. At present, they do not know whether those changes will include restructuring, after 10 years of restructuring, or whether they will conflict with the Government's present proposals. Neither do the work force and many pensioners know whether their present travel concessions will be protected. Employees are uncertain whether their promotion prospects will be damaged. If they are, their pensions will also be harmed. There are many previous instances of that happening.
The work force and existing pensioners are worried about what will happen to their existing pensions. I do not rely on my pension, because I realised a long time ago, after I entered local government service, that my BR pension would not be sufficient to live on. However, many rely wholly on their BR pension for their future income.
Experience has shown that privatisation has not helped pensioners. The privatisations of British Rail Engineering Ltd, British Transport Hotels, Sealink and Travellers Fare produced pension schemes that were supposed to offer equal benefits and to mirror BR schemes. In fact, many of the new schemes closed, stagnated or offered only marginal improvements. In any event, they have not kept pace with BR schemes, while offering contribution holidays to employees, who pay nothing, while the pensioners receive less.
There is in people's minds today the spectre of Robert Maxwell. That case has concentrated the thoughts of those working in the railway and mining industries about the future of their pension funds. We have read much in the newspapers about the losses made by names at Lloyd's and suggestions that they ought to be compensated. I do not believe that they should. I have no more sympathy for names than I do for those who lose money on the stock exchange or by gambling on horses. Damon Runyon said that all those who play the horses die broke. One takes a risk, and enjoys the profits when one wins—so one must accept the losses when one loses. However, pensioners are not like that. They pay money to provide for their future security.
In the light of the Maxwell fiasco, the Government have an opportunity—which they should not miss—to send out a clear message to those who would con, cheat, rob, and steal from pensioners that such behaviour will not be tolerated. They can also send out to pensioners the message that their pension funds will be protected. The Government can do that today by ensuring that special

protection is built into the process of privatisation. If they agree to new clause 1. they can make the minium concession that they should to pensioners.

Mr. McCartney: As a member of the Select Committee on Social Security in the previous Parliament, I spent a great deal of time investigating this issue. As a Member of Parliament, I represent a coal mining community; my grandfather and grandmother both worked in a coal mining community, and my Scottish uncle died of pneumoconiosis at an early age. I therefore have some affinity with the new clause. It is necessary, historically and legally, to protect pensioners in coalfield and railway communities. It will also ensure a Government commitment to achieving equity.
In 1984. my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) challenged the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Mr. Cecil Parkinson, over the Government's commitment to British Telecom's pensioners on the privatisation of that public service. Mr. Parkinson replied that BT employees would have constitutional rights in respect of their pension scheme—yet two years after BT's privatisation, The Times reported on 22 August 1984 that the Opposition's fears about future employees might have been justified.
The article reported that British Telecom intended to introduce a new pension scheme in 1986 that would deny future employees the right to automatic index-linking of pensions—but that it would apply only to people joining British Telecom after 1 April 1986. In other words, British Telecom changed the rules after privatisation, and tens of thousands of pensioners lost the rights that were promised to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, other hon. Members, and the Union of Communication Workers.
In the latter part of last year, the Social Security Select Committee took evidence in respect of the Government's intentions in regard to the pension schemes of nationalised and privatised industries. I quote from the Committee's second report. published on 4 March 1992. We took evidence from a former employee of the National Bus Company who had written to the Committee expressing concern about the effect of privatisation on the fund from which his pension was paid. The report states, in paragraphs 268 to 269:
The National Audit Office investigated the sale of the National Bus Company, a company which by 1985 accounted for almost half the national bus mileage in England and Wales. The Government in 1984 had proposed the deregulation of the bus industry, and as part of this programme the NBC was to be returned to the private sector in smaller free standing parts. The 1985 Transport Act set the framework for the sale, and required disposal of the company by January 1989.
The proceeds of the sale amounted to £324.2 million. Net receipts to the Exchequer amounted to £165.4 million, of which £120 million was an estimated net surplus on pension funds. Before tax the surplus was £200 million.
The National Audit Office found that the Government had on privatisation asset-stripped the National Bus Company's pension fund, and in doing so were able to present a far rosier picture of the company's resources at the time of its sale. Paragraph 270 adds:
The Public Accounts Committee in its investigation asked the Department why the pension fund surplus had been claimed as a net receipt from the sale. The Department responded that the figure of £120 million was part of the estimated net receipts following the sale.
The Department offered no satisfactory explanation as to why the assets were used in that way. Current and future


pensioners of British Coal and British Rail schemes are well warned about the Government's promises, attitudes and actions.
I ask the House to consider other cases involving pensioners who lost out through privatisation. BREL pensioners in my constituency were formerly employed by Parkfield Castings and their pensions were lost when that company went bust. They also lost their travel allowances, and were not entitled in law to any recompense.
A more recent case, again notified to the Select Committee late last year, is that of the British Airways helicopter pilots. During negotiations with British Airways at the time of its privatisation, Robert Maxwell and his companies bought British Airways companies and responsibility for helicopter operations in the North sea and the highlands and islands of the United Kingdom. Shortly after the sale, an agreement was reached between Maxwell's companies and British Airways. Employees were told that, as part of their contract of employment, they had agreed to move out of the British Airways pension scheme and into the new British International Helicopters scheme.
5.30 pm
From then on, neither the Occupational Pensions Board nor the City regulators made any effort to take account of what was happening to the pension fund. Now, their pension fund having been looted, the pensioners are bereft of resources, and the Government have only belatedly produced a rescue package that may assist them in the short term. The House did nothing to protect pensioners at the time of the British Airways privatisation.
At the time of the privatisation of the National Freight Corporation, agreements were reached as a result of which the Government still make a small contribution to the pension fund. In every other case of privatisation, however, the Government have failed lamentably to take account of the consequences. That can be seen clearly when we examine the history of corporate takeovers in the 1980s. Most of the companies targeted by Hanson and others were targeted not because of their performances in regard to exports or investment, but purely because of the tangible assets held by their pension funds and the ease with which corporate raiders could get their hands on those assets. In the 1980s, the self-regulatory system in the City failed again and again to accommodate the rights of pensioners.
In legal terms, the most important case so far has been that involving Hanson and the tobacco industry. The Select Committee took a good deal of evidence about the consequence of Hanson's attempt to raid the pension funds. I have not raised the subject of Hanson because I see him as a bogeyman in relation to the new clause. It is likely that Hanson and his companies—such as Peabody's Coal Company—will try to purchase parts of the British coal industry, and that they will have a direct influence on, and interest in, the consequences of the break-up of British Coal and the future of the assets of its two major pension funds. Those assets amount to more than £12 billion. Hanson's history is vital in this connection, and the Government should be required to include in the Bill clauses to take account of the court ruling on the subject.
In both his summing up and his written judgment, the judge in the Hanson case said that he could not understand why the trustees representing the employees had immediately been made redundant when they raised

objections to the attempt to manipulate pension fund assets. The trustees who replaced them had done the same. and they, too, had been made redundant. The judge suggested that Hanson had used intimidating tactics to ensure that he could place on the board of trustees people who would simply rubber-stamp his intentions. Luckily. the court and, eventually, the House of Lords made arrangements for the funds to be protected, but it took tens of millions of pounds of pension fund assets for that to happen. Moreover, Hanson did not meet the costs of legal advice; the pensioners met the cost from the pension funds. The Government must write into the Bill clear commitments in respect of pensioners' rights.
The Bill has come at an embarrassing time for the Government. They will probably publish tomorrow their response to the report on occupational pension funds, published—as I said earlier—on 4 March 1992. Until 3.30 pm tomorrow, we shall not know what that response will be, but one thing is certain: no one can doubt the inadequacy of trust law in protecting pensioners, whether it applies to takeovers, privatisations or the general run of investment policies.
The most important aspect of the new clause is the need to ensure that professional advisers are independent of both the Government and management. Time and again, evidence to the Select Committee has make it plain that the main problem is the failure of warning systems to operate effectively, or at all. In almost every instance of the plundering or potential plundering of pension funds, professional advisers have been tied hand and foot to the companies employing them.
That does not apply only to Maxwell. Believe it or not, the Select Committee has received abundant evidence of corruption on both a large and small scale, and of unhelpful practices by employers. Some of those practices, although morally indefensible, are entirely legal, such as stock lending—lending to oneself a large proportion of investment funds as though a free banking system were in operation, or taking large pension holidays at the expense of future pensioners, as British Coal is currently doing. I hope that the Government will do something about that.
Apart from the professional advisers, everyone who has given evidence to the Select Committee—solicitors, barristers, private-sector advisers to the pensions industry, trade unions, pensioners' organisations and deferred pensioners' organisations—has said, "For God's sake, bring in legislation to protect us from advisers who are representing the company on one hand and, on the other hand, are responsible for advising trustees about the investment and the movement in and out of the portfolio of hard cash or assets belonging to pensioners." The Maxwell case is a fine example. A total of £1.8 million was taken out of the Maxwell pension funds in the space of a few months at the end of last year to pay the professional advisers. Maxwell did not pay them; the pensioners had to. That was rubbing salt in the wound—making the pensioners pay advisers who had never advised them.
An adviser in one firm of solicitors was paid more than £40,000 from the pension fund for writing a single letter on behalf of Maxwell and his fellow directors. The letter was a carefully constructed lie in response to complaints that had been received about the manipulation of funds. That solicitor still practises in the City. He admitted to the Select Committee that for writing a letter he had received more than £40,000—it had taken him more than six weeks


to construct the letter—from the very pensioners who had asked him to investigate corrupt practices. That is entirely unacceptable.
During that critical 12-month period when the auditors were licensed by the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation to regulate their own investments, they literally closed their eyes and their books and walked away. As they did so, hundreds of millions of pounds were taken out of the fund and are now to be found in various parts of the world. That is what might happen to British Rail's pension fund and to the mineworkers pension funds. These pension funds will be at greatest risk after privatisation. The City cannot wait to get its hands on them.
It is essential, therefore, that the Government should put on to the face of the Bill clear and precise arrangements that take account of the Select Committee's inquiry into pension fraud. The Government must also take into account what the industry, the managers' associations, the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and the National Union of Mineworkers have said to them. If the Government are not prepared to do so, history will be repeated. The asset-rich pension funds of British Coal and British Rail will be part and parcel of the sell-off. They will be the only reason for the sell-off. One only has to consider what happened after electricity privatisation. Under the contract arrangements, British Coal has been run into the ground. British Coal's only tangible asset is coal in the ground and its pension fund.
The Government must give commitments if they are to end the sincere worry of those employed in the industry and of the hundreds of thousands of pensioners and future pensioners. Unless the Government give those commitments, we shall have to divide the House and, by campaigning, make people aware of the fact that, despite Maxwell and the Select Committee's report, the Government are still prepared to gamble with the assets of public-sector pensioners.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I echo what has already been said by my hon. Friends, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I worked in the coal mining industry and was the mineworkers' trade union representative until I was made redundant. Active and retired mine workers, and also their wives and widows, are extremely worried. I make no apologies for repeating that fact. We are talking about ordinary people and many honest individuals who have given their lives and their health to the industry. Some of them lie awake at night wondering what is going to happen. I appeal again to the Government, as I appealed to them in Committee, to look at what is going to happen to the fund.
It is difficult not to repeat what others have said, but I shall try my best to consider this matter from another angle. ON, a highly respected organisation, runs the pension fund. It is even respected in the City. Its investments on behalf of miners, their widows and others, are second to none. It makes investments throughout the world. I represented the trade union side on the fund for four years. The people who administer the pension fund are tough. I want to know what the Government intend to do about the fund.
If the industry is privatised, miners will not necessarily find that their pension fund investments are made by that organisation. I am asking for continuity. If doubt is cast

on its future, the headhunters in the City of London and elsewhere will take away its top people. In addition, between 290 and 300 people administer the fund in Sheffield and elsewhere. They earn their livelihood by looking after the pensioners' interests. I want to know what is going to happen to these people. They have done a good job. This is a good organisation. It would be a crime if it were to be split up after privatisation.
5.45 pm
Some pension fund money has been put into works of art. That may be a great way of increasing the amount of cash, but it is not working for anyone. The works of art are either in museums or vaults. The money that is in this fund is working for people and has been invested in this country. I took a great deal of pleasure from the fact that money was lent to people who were starting up on green field sites or were pursuing other activities.
It is internationally accepted that this country is at the top of the league when it comes to new ideas. The silicon chip and many other inventions were the result of work done in learned institutions and technical colleges in this country, but they were developed and manufactured by other countries. The conservative attitude in the City of London and in our finance houses leads them to look for a return on their money yesterday. Six months is too long; a year is impossible. However, our Japanese competitors talk about getting a return in 10 or 12 years and of having a monopoly over any invention.
This organisation, however, waits for a return for anything up to six years. It does not have rose-tinted glasses; it does not give money to non-starters. It has been so successful that British Rail has asked it to take on its investments. That encourages intitiative and provides jobs for people in mining areas and elsewhere. It leads to investment in the know-how and initiative of the British people, which is second to none. That fact alone should lead to the Government allowing this fund to stay alive and the investment experts together. Risk capital is one of the particular strengths of this organisation.
We cannot, however, just sit back and say that everything is all right with this fund. One has to bear in mind the Maxwell nightmare. The fund must be well organised. Its assets must not be handed over to anybody else.
I ask the Minister to take on board my arguments on behalf of the mining communities who have invested their wealth and health in this country. The miners were never seen to be wanting when it came to campaigning against fascism. They fought for this country in two world wars. I do not want a Maxwell scandal to come out of this. There should not even be the hint of a Maxwell scandal here. I want a guarantee from the Minister that the cash that has been built up for their pensions by people who have created wealth for this country will be preserved.
I am not talking about City or stock exchange manipulations, or about somebody walking away with millions of pounds. I am talking about hard work to create wealth, generating power and energy for industry, commerce and domestic use. Without the coal industry, we would be in a poor position. Many countries envy our energy assets, but I am worried that they will be stripped before privatisation.
I want a moratorium on some of British Coal's activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) mentioned land being sold off. Two


anthracite mines are being sold in south Wales. I want to know about the other deals that are going on. We cannot stop them dead in their tracks, but I want the Minister to ensure that, before the Bill takes effect, he analyses any asset pertaining to the sale. Asset stripping may occur before privatisation. I do not trust some of the people who are running British Coal—and one person in particular, who hon. Members know all about.
The Government might get up to some of their old tricks by selling off assets to their friends or someone else before privatisation. Those assets belong to the industry and to the people of this country. I do not want any funny deals to be done before privatisation. That goes for pit closures as well. Premature pit closure can be detrimental asset stripping. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
I shall close there—I know that we shall debate other amendments later—but that does not mean that I am not interested in safety, concessionary coal or the other organisations that have been mentioned. However, it is important that we concentrate on pension funds.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I want briefly to support the new clause and to ask the Minister to take on board the fact that this is not just a ritual debate on privatisation. I have served on several privatisation and enabling Bills, in which, properly, there have always been debates on pensions.
The Minister must accept that what has happened in the past year has brought into sharp focus the concerns of thousands of people who are affected by the proposed privatisations. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) referred to British International Helicopters, whose operational headquarters are in my constituency. At the time of the proposed privatisation of British Airways, the work force of British Airways Helicopters, as it then was, were assured that their pension funds would be safe and that they would continue to be full members of the British Airways pension fund. Even when it became apparent that British Airways' management, having said that it had no intention of selling the company, was in negotiations to do so, the work force were told that they would be safeguarded as continuing members of the pension fund.
The Minister will understand, therefore, how sick and cynical those people now feel. They are victims of the Maxwell fraud and, as I understand it, they do not know whether they will benefit from the Secretary of State's rescue fund. As of a few days ago, two employees who had reached pensionable age since the winding-up of the Maxwell pension fund had not received any payment from the Mirror Group, which does not accept responsibility, or from the Secretary of State's rescue fund.
That sad example shows the dangers of fragmenting pension funds at the point of privatisation. In his detailed proposals to privatise rail and coal, will the Minister consider whether pension funds continue to exist as single entities rather than their being frozen and new pension funds being set up for each new company that is privatised? For example, if British Rail's employees were to transfer to one of the franchised companies, or if the coal industry were sold on a regional group basis or pit by pit, whereby employees were transferred to, for example, Yorkshire Collieries Ltd., would the Minister ensure that they did not cease to be members of their previous pension

funds and were not moved into a smaller and, by definition, more vulnerable pension fund that did not have the benefit of accumulated assets?
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a powerful point about contribution holidays. It would be ironic if such employees found that their new employer did not offer the benefit of the accumulated successfully managed fund and had to start from scratch without receiving a contribution that would bring the fund up to the same competitive level from which they had benefited up to that point and which they might have hoped to continue until full retirement age.
The anxieties of pension fund contributors are bound to have been sharpened by what has happened in the past year. The lack of clarity in the Government's plans on how British Rail and the railways will be operated under their new proposals and how the coal industry will be privatised add to that uncertainty. It would be helpful if the Minister said that existing pension funds will not be frozen or broken up and that some mechanism will be found to ensure that payments continue.
The Secretary of State for Social Security is reviewing pension law. If the law has not been amended to take on board the concerns that have been expressed in the debate, will the Minister undertake to ensure that the legislation for the privatisation of the coal and rail industries will enhance the guarantees and protections that are being sought for those pension fund holders and to give serious consideration to ensuring that pension funds are not broken up?

Mr. McCartney: It might be helpful if the Minister were prepared to introduce an arrangement similar to that for electricity privatisation. The Department of Social Security proposed regulations to ensure that when the regional companies took over on vesting day the pension funds were protected. The machinery was complicated, but the Government introduced it because of the pressure that was put on them.

Mr. Bruce: The Minister will have heard that pertinent observation. To some extent, we do not seem to have learnt fully; we continue to reinvent the wheel and each new privatisation creates its own problems.
The Minister will have heard many powerful and specific speeches, articulating concerns and asking him particular questions. I hope that he will recognise that this is not just a token gesture for which a token assurance will be acceptable and that he must show that the Government take on board the seriousness of people's concerns. He must assure hon. Members that the Government will address those concerns under general pension legislation—and, I suggest, under the privatisation Bills that will be introduced—and that existing funds will continue and will be safeguarded.

Mr. Michael Clapham: I support what my hon. Friend for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said in moving the new clause. A number of important issues have been raised in the debate. I want to concentrate my comments on the mining industry and its pension schemes. At present, four pension schemes operate. The first is the mineworkers contractors pension scheme, which provides the same benefits to sub-contract workers as is provided under the mineworkers pension scheme for industrial workers. The second


pension scheme is that of the British Association of Colliery Management; the third is for supervisory workers and the fourth is the mineworkers' pension scheme.
The accumulated funds of the four schemes are well in excess of £12 billion, which is a great attraction to an asset stripper. Therefore, it is essential that we are able to ring-fence the schemes. The Minister has already made promises about what he is prepared to do, but we must go beyond promises. We need copper-bottomed guarantees in the form of legislation, perhaps part of the Bill, to ensure that the mining communities have the necessary protection.
Miners are already beginning to suffer anguish. For example, on Saturday two constituents came to my surgery to ask whether their pensions would be guaranteed, and I am sure that the same has happened to many of my hon. Friends.
6 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred to the pensions holiday which has been in existence since 1987. The Minister will be aware that British Coal took £300 million out of the first surplus. The second sum taken from the surplus was £435 million, making a total of £735 million taken from the mineworkers' pension scheme to provide a contributions holiday. That has been an enormous help for British Coal, but it has been detrimental to the pensioners.
British Coal will not now make a contribution to the scheme until the year 2001. That is ironic at a time when we are talking about selling the industry. Companies that we could call sharks are circling the industry, ready to move in, and will be able to take advantage of the contributions holiday which, as I said, will last to the year 2001.
In giving copper-bottomed guarantees, I hope that the Minister will be able to examine how the pension scheme will operate in the future. Perhaps he will be prepared to consider a national pension scheme for all the industry's workers, irrespective of the shape that the future privatised industry may take, so that a man working for subcontractors who are further subcontracted will not have a worse pension than any other payroll worker. We need a uniformity of pension provision throughout the industry, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will take that suggestion on board.
At the same time, we must consider how employees can be guaranteed rights when they transfer from one employer to another within a national pension scheme. If they are part of national pension scheme, it must be guaranteed that their pension will remain in that scheme without the same transferred values as there would otherwise be, especially if the industry has perhaps seven or eight different employers.
New clause 3 is essential because it will provide the protection which the mining communities require. New clause 7 requires consultation with those representing mineworkers, such as those on management committees of pension funds. I hope that the Minister will guarantee open consultation and that new clause 7 will be accepted.
I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) said about new clause 9 and land. New clause 9 also refers to colliery welfare organisations. The Minister will be aware that the Coal

Industry Social Welfare Organisation, which has been in existence since 1947, has done a great deal of cultural work in mining communities but has also assisted mineworkers' families whose breadwinner has been injured.
For example, in my area of South Yorkshire, we have a paraplegic centre run by the social welfare organisation, which miners who have been crippled in the collieries can attend. At the same time, social workers do an enormous amount to support families who have reduced incomes since their breadwinners suffered an injury in the industry. Will the Minister consider a formula whereby the coal industry social welfare organisation may continue?
British Rail has vast amounts of land, much of which is farmed by tenant farmers, as is the case in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will be cautious and will ensure that land sales do not take place over the heads of the farmers or without any consultation. It is essential that such farmers are consulted and, if possible, given the opportunity to buy the land. Some of them—or their families—have farmed the land since 1947, and they should be given the opportunity to buy it rather than becoming tenant farmers of a landowner about whom they know little. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.
The new clauses covering pensions are essential. I hope that the Minister will say that he is prepared to accept them to give pensioners in the mining communities the protection that they require.

Mr. Skinner: Last week the parliamentary miners' group went to visit the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I think that he is called "President", but one of our group decided to ask him how he wanted to be addressed. To be honest, he seemed a bit embarrassed, but they settled for "Hezza". I am not sure that he liked it, but he had to lump it. Ten of us met him in the new Department of Trade and Industry building, which is called Ashdown house. I do not know whether there is any political significance in that, but I should not want to be stuck in a building named after Paddy Backdown.
It was interesting that we were only a few hundred yards from another building, 25 Victoria street, which the President of the Board of Trade used in the back end of 1990 to campaign to get rid of Thatcher. There were television cameras outside when the campaign was launched. I took a special interest in it and wondered what had happened to the building. It is blighted. Grilles have been put up, as happens when a property has gone down and been left empty for a long time.
I seriously believe that there is a big property scam. The DTI building at the bottom of Victoria street is being closed and is now part of the blight. I reckon that a property company will buy the lot and make a big fat killing. Where will the money come from? It will probably come from the miners' or the railway workers' pension funds. That is how such companies get the finance. They get it out of pension fund money; it is not their own money.
The Minister should come clean and give us a guarantee that nothing connected with the Department of Trade and Industry or with No. 25 Victoria street will go to line the pockets of any Tory Member who votes on the Bill. That could happen. Hon. Members are meant to declare a conflict of interest. As sure as night follows day, some Tory Members will go into the Lobby in the knowledge that the


pension fund money belonging to men and women who have slogged their guts out all their lives will be used to fill their pockets and to help them to make a killing.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: rose——

Mr. Skinner: I have caught one.

Mr. Arnold: I am somewhat confused by the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Was not Robert Maxwell a Labour Member?

Mr. Skinner: As the hon. Gentleman has introduced the subject, I will tell him what Robert Maxwell was. Mr. Deputy Speaker has heard the question, so I must answer it. Robert Maxwell was a mate of Peter Walker's. Peter Walker was a Minister in the Tory Government from beginning to end. He served Thatcher loyally for 13 years. When he packed up, just before he finished as a Member of Parliament, he was one of the 19 ex-Cabinet Ministers who had 59 moonlighting jobs between them. His last moonlighting job before he finished as a Member of Parliament was to join Robert Maxwell and to launder money. He got £450,000 out of Maxwell—I am sorry, out of pensioners.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I trust that the word "pensioners" came in. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules of the House. May we get back to the new clause, please?

Mr. Skinner: I brought in the word "pensioners" because it is relevant to the debate. What happened in the Maxwell pension fiddle in relation to Peter Walker, who took £450,000 out of the pockets of Mirror Group Newspapers pensioners and got a Mercedes car worth £50,000, is relevant to the debate. Peter Walker should pay back the money. Every Tory Member should demand that the ex-Tory Cabinet Minister pays the money back into the pensioners' pockets.
I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have constituents who were part of the mighty lobby a few weeks ago when the Maxwell pensioners pleaded for justice. I am sure that you agree that Peter Walker should put his hand in his back pocket and send the money back—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is unanimous.
This debate is about considering whether such a pension fiddle could happen again. Many of my hon. Friends have mentioned that it is quite possible. The debate is about ensuring, if we can—we cannot be sure about Tories—that all Labour Members are fully aware of what can happen with pension money.
It is not long since the miners had a meeting with British Coal about their pensions. British Coal said, "If we have a pensions holiday, we can get £435 million and British Coal will not have to pay any money until 2001." Our people in the National Union of Mineworkers said, "You are not going to do that. If you have any spare money, it should go to pay miners who have retired, and those who have been made redundant and thrown on the scrap heap. It should go to the widows of those miners who died choking with pneumoconiosis. Give it to them." That would have meant an extra 16 per cent., which would not have broken the bank. Some pensioners get only £10 a week. My mother, before she went, used to get £10 a week after my dad died.
What has British Coal done? It has pocketed £435 million. How did it achieve that? It achieved it by its

people voting for it, together with Prendergast, the representative of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers—the scab union. I use that phrase especially for those who might have doubts about the UDM.
The other Sunday, I read in the business section of The Sunday Times—before it ran the Di story, because there is nothing in the second section other than that now—that Mr. Hanson, a well-known fan of Mrs. Thatcher and the Tory party who has now changed his allegiance to the present Prime Minister because it suits his pocket, has said that he will take Canary Wharf off the Government's hands and that he will take over the mining industry if he can use the £435 million from the pension fund. He could then buy the industry with the miners' own money—their deferred wages. That is clever. I want the Minister to tell us that that will not happen and that neither Hanson nor anybody else will use pension fund money to buy the remains of the coal mining industry.
6.15 pm
Let us imagine what would happen if the UDM decided to cash in. The UDM does not have enough money to buy the coal industry. Let us suppose that having voted to have the pension holiday, it is then able to use some of the money to get a stake in the privatised coal industry. That is a conflict of interests. The Minister has a duty to tell us that that will not happen in the industry. If it does, all the talk about Maxwell and the rest is meaningless.
We met the President of the Board of Trade. Like Cecil Parkinson, whom we met once, he was badly briefed. Two or three years ago, we asked Cecil Parkinson how he would privatise British Coal; he did not know. He told the Tory party conference that the Government would privatise British Coal. What did that mean?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is out of order in relation to the new clauses. Will the hon. Gentleman please get back to the pensioners?

Mr. Skinner: I do not want to teach grandmothers how to suck eggs, but I will tell you this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Privatisation of the coal mining industry is wrapped up in all the amendments and new clauses. If you want me to find some labyrinthine way to get back to the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will take the time necessary to do so, but I do not think that you want me to waste time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not mind how the hon. Gentleman gets back to the new clause; I would like him to get back to it.

Mr. Skinner: The new clauses and the pension scheme are closely connected with the privatisation of the coal mining industry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is what the paving Bill is about. There are some clever people in the City, who are close to the Tory party and who are financing the Tory campaign, who have said, "We will help you to privatise the coal mining industry and we will use the pensioners' money to do it—we will pinch it out of the pockets of the widows and retired miners." Have you got it, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Are we on the ball? I think that we are. I ask the Minister for some clear answers to the questions put by me and by my hon. Friends.
The sell-off will be a sleazy affair because it is possible for the Minister to make statements here today, but then if the Bill becomes law to say, "The industry is privatised—it is none of my business." A private entrepreneur may get hold of the pension funds. The Minister can then say,


"We were clean and pure until the industry was privatised; now we have no contact with it—it is the owners' business."
I want an assurance from the Minister that even after privatisation the Government will ensure that coal, pensions and all other entitlements are kept secure, as they were after nationalisation in 1947. It is no good saying that we are going to change things now. Let us suppose that the industry is sold off twice, first to one body and then to another. That is quite conceivable. The Minister might say that the Government managed to safeguard the pension entitlements when they passed the industry over to the first purchaser, but if it is passed on again, those entitlements may be lost.

Mr. Redmond: rose——

Mr. Skinner: I can see my hon. Friend straining at the leash, so I will give way to him.

Mr. Redmond: The House should be aware of the problems that have occurred following privatisation of other nationalised industries. Far from the El Dorado that we were promised after privatisation, there have been enormous problems and the public have had to pick up the bill. They are paying a terrible price for mistakes which have occurred in legislation. The privatisation of British Coal is a complicated business. Unless we get it spot on, people will make a killing from it and some people will die as a result of being ripped off by the City and as a result of mistakes made in this House.

Mr. Skinner: I was trying to point that out, but you were not too keen on me travelling down that road, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Suffice it to say that my hon. Friend is correct. The privatisation of British Coal is unlike any other privatisation. It is impossible to secure markets in an industry where one is battling against mother nature. That is why we subsidise farmers in Britain. They cannot produce food as cheaply as it can be produced in Mediterranean areas, in parts of the Common Market or elsewhere in countries with better climates.
There must be a change of philosophy to secure the mining industry. Privatisation could mean the death knell of the British coal industry. Some Tory Members do not care about that, but many Opposition Members do.
Reference was made to finding the Maxwell money. En passant, I believe that if the Government want to find that money, they should do what they did in respect of the miners' money in 1984. They followed the miners' money to Luxembourg, Ireland and everywhere else. The Government found it in a few months. If they want to get the Maxwell pensioners' money back, they should act in that way. They should deal with the banks so that the Maxwell pensioners who do not have two halfpennies to rub together can get their money back.
The Minister's job today is to give us a guarantee that if the industry is handed over, all the pension entitlements will be secure—not for 12 months, or two years, but way beyond the year 2000 so that everyone who receives a pension will continue to receive it.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): Whatever hon. Members thought about what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) had to say, they must agree 'that it was good entertainment.

Mr Peter Snape: Your speech will not be.

Mr. Eggar: My speech will certainly not be as riveting as that of the hon. Member for Bolsover.
No matter what differences there may be between the Government and the Opposition in the House or the differences between us in Standing Committee, there was total agreement about the importance of the pension fund. It is critical to those who receive pensions. As the hon. Member for Bolsover said, many of those pensioners receive very small amounts. The pension fund is also important for the hundreds of thousands of people who will receive a pension in the future. It is also important for those who are still employed in the industry.
The Government and the trustees of the present pension fund must decide how, given that the Government have decided to privatise the industry, those pension funds are to be allocated and how the Government's determination to safeguard the pensions and the pension funds can be implemented.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) raised an interesting point. He wanted to know whether it is appropriate, given that privatisation is going to happen, to section off parts of the pension fund relating to those people with entitlements who are still in the industry. I assume that he believes that, if that was the route to be followed, any sectioned-off amount would automatically reflect the proportion of any surplus or overall assets in the main fund. The hon. Member for Gordon wanted to know how those assets would be protected. The hon. Member for Bolsover made the same point in more colourful language. He wanted to know how those vital assets could be protected for the rights of the individuals who had paid at least a proportion of the total assets in the fund if the industry was sold on in future.
Those are very complex issues. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) recognised that the factors involve the ratio between the number of present contributors and apparent and future beneficiaries. Those factors are unique to the British Coal pension fund. Indeed, the fund is not simply unique in terms of the size of its assets. Those complex questions must be addressed very carefully.
In response to the hon. Members for Midlothian, for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)—who made a particularly interesting speech with his expertise from the Select Committee on Social Services—I must state that we are determined to achieve a solution that is just and fair for all the different participants in the pension fund. We have said that we are going to safeguard pensioners' rights under the pension scheme, and will certainly stick by that undertaking.
I state quite specifically that there has never been and there will never be, so long as I stand at the Dispatch Box and am responsible for policy in the area, any rip-off by any potential purchaser of the coal industry of the accumulated assets under the pension funds. That would be totally inexcusable, and no member of the Government would put up with it.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: The Minister seemed to say that he was relying on the trustees of the miners' pension scheme to safeguard the interests of miners' pensions. Is the Minister aware that 50 per cent. of the trustees represent British Coal management, who are


scheming at present for a management buy-out? There is evidence from the holiday that is costing £435 million of pensioners' money that the management are intent on using the money. I hope that the Minister will not tell us that he is relying on the good will of the trustees of the miners' pension scheme. I hope that the Government will provide the safeguards in black and white in legislation to safeguard miners' pensions.

Mr. Eggar: I have given an assurance to the House on behalf of the Government. Clearly, the trustees of the pension fund at the moment have a duty to the pensioners and to act in an appropriate way. The hon. Member for Midlothian is well aware of how that operates. I agree with the hon. Member for Midlothian that the pension fund has been well managed. It consistently performs at the top end of pension fund performance, and I have every hope that that will continue to be the case. However, it is unfair to the trustees of the pension fund to imply that any of them in any way at any time believes that giving the holiday to British Coal was a way of assisting them in a management or employee buy-out of the industry. That kind of rumour and slur simply do not help a very important and serious debate.
We have heard much about the holiday for British Coal. No Opposition Member has mentioned that, on the previous valuation, there was a surplus of more than £1,400 million in the mineworkers' pension scheme, and £1,000 million of that went back to the beneficiaries in one form or another. It was not distributed solely for the purpose of giving a holiday to British Coal, and the House of Commons should recognise that.

Mr. Dobson: How can the Minister expect miners to accept his assurances about the future of the pension scheme when they know of the assurances that Mr. Peter Walker gave when he was the Secretary of State for Energy before he went off to the other place? He assured the miners that there would be no change in the law governing the number of hours that may be worked underground, and no repeal of the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908 without their agreement. However, the Government repealed that law without the miners' agreement. How can the Minister expect miners to accept an assurance on pensions when the Government have gone back on their previous assurances on safety?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman's speeches in the House and at Barnsley were an absolute disgrace. He was deliberately and consciously, I suspect for reasons more to do with the shadow Cabinet elections than anything else, seeking to stir up concern and worry about pensions in the coalfield communities. We can do many things in the House and we can have many debates about the right way to privatise the industry and about the right way to protect pensioners, but the depths to which the hon. Gentleman is prepared to sink really disturb me.
We are talking about individuals—people who go to hon. Members' surgeries because they are worried about their pensions. The least we should offer them—we should be able to reassure them—is a sensible analysis of the options. The scaremongering and low-level tactics pursued by the hon. Gentleman are most disturbing and surprising from a member of the Opposition Front Bench, in particular.

Mr. Dobson: The House of Commons is a place where laws are made. The least we can do to assure miners, railway workers and pensioners is to pass some laws to protect them, and not rely on feeble ministerial assurances from a Government who have already gone back on previous assurances affecting the self-same industry.

Mr. Eggar: I differ from the hon. Gentleman in that I am simply not prepared to play political football with people's pensions for political gain. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this is a paving Bill. He knows perfectly well that it is structured to enable British Coal and British Rail to get the necessary advice to enable them to prepare themselves for privatisation. He knows as well as other hon. Members that the time for detailed and legal consideration of matters relating to pensions and other matters relating to privatisation is when the House considers the main Bill, yet he goes around the country and repeats again today, and he will do it again—[Interruption.] He is deliberately worrying individuals out there in the country. He is not even prepared to do so in anything resembling a balanced way. He knows perfectly well that he will have a chance to debate those matters when the Bill comes before the House. I simply do not understand how he can act so irresponsibly.

Mr. Madden: Opposition Members are concerned about the pension funds of two great industries and the people who serve those industries. Will the Minister answer a very simple question? When privatisation is proposed, will the pension funds be protected and safeguarded by legislation, bearing in mind that Ministers come and go, that their assurances are not worth the paper they are written on, and that one Government cannot commit another Government? Will the Minister give a clear and simple answer to the question put a few minutes ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)? Will the pension funds be safeguarded by legislation?

Mr. Eggar: I have said categorically, and I say again, that individuals' pension rights will be safeguarded. The mechanism that is used to achieve that end has not yet been decided upon. The hon. Member for Makerfield drew attention to the method that had been used for the electricity industry privatisation. That is one option; there are a number of others. I say quite categorically that we are committed to safeguarding pensions, we will safeguard pensions, and we will use the most appropriate method to do just that.

Mr. Redmond: Obviously, the protection of pensions is a crucial point. When people such as Lord Hanson are whipping around the country ripping off, selling or disposing of assets, we can understand people's fear. British Coal and the Union of Democratic Mineworkers combined to vote for the free holiday period. If the Minister is suggesting—I hope he is not—that the present structure is to be maintained, I urge him to rethink. It would make pensioners extremely happy if there were a regulatory body purely and simply to look after pensioners' rights which could not utilise their funds in any way, shape or form. It is very important that the present structure—the UDM and the National Union of Mineworkers—will not be satisfactory if privatization


takes place. There has to be something else that takes the control of pensions from the industry but gives the lads and lasses protection.

Mr. Eggar: I understand the hon. Gentleman's points. It is just those factors that we need to consider and decide, taking into account the points that have been made by other hon. Gentlemen, so that we provide essential safeguarding in the most appropriate way. There are many factors that we have to take into account. Of course, whatever structure is finally decided, the pension funds will be covered by the normal legislation with regard to the safeguarding on monetary amounts, and that has always been the case.

Mr. Eric Clarke: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: I shall give way one last time.

Mr. Clarke: When we privatise the industry, we may nationalise the funds. It worries me that the Treasury might have its eye on the assets of the funds. The Minister will guarantee to the people, "Yes, we will look after you; yes, you will get your pension at this rate." The Minister said that there are other methods. Other methods can be other methods. I am very suspicious of that. I want an assurance that the benefits of the funds, investment and know-how go into the Treasury and not into people's pockets. They will be frozen and the benefits of the know-how and future surpluses created by that fund will go to the Treasury. That is not the road down which I want to go. I want a guarantee from the Government but I do not want people to pay a high price for it. One of the problems is that the Minister can give a guarantee from the Despatch Box but people will pay for it.

Mr. Eggar: I see the hon. Gentleman's point but, clearly, the method used must be considered. We must ensure that pensioners' rights are safeguarded in the most appropriate way.

Mr. Snape: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: No.

Mr. Snape: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can sec that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When it is clear that the Minister is not giving way, I should be grateful if hon. Members would take their seats.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I persist in this matter because the Minister has mentioned me twice—I accept that he has not attacked me yet—and it would have been common courtesy to give way to me just for a moment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is abusing the point of order system.

Mr. Snape: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Makerfield and promise that, in due course, I shall attack him if that will do any good.

Mr. McCartney: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your persistence has paid off.
I suggest that the Minister reads a textbook entitled "Essential Guide to Pensions", page 188 of which says that the Government have a standard policy for pension funds in the event of privatisation. First, they close down the current fund so that new entrants have completely different benefits. They then remove the right to indexation and other benefits. That is not my view but was written by Sue Ward, who has just been appointed by the Secretary of State for Social Security on the committee to review pensions law and whether pensioners need better protection. So the Government's advisers say that the Government have a set pattern, which means that, in the long run, pensioners lose out through privatisation. Is the Minister prepared to read that book and learn from it?

Mr. Eggar: I have not read the book to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, in his speech he elegantly drew attention to the fact that, in practice, the Government had adopted a number of different approaches to the pension funds in various privatisations. So the assertion that there is only one methodology does not stand up, even on the analysis in his speech.

Mr. Snape: Does the Minister accept that his allegations about my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) scaremongering and his refusal to answer detailed questions on this complex matter are not helpful to the House? Does he recollect the exchanges in Standing Committee A on 18 June, when my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) pointed out the case of a British Rail employee who moved from the publicly owned railways to the privately owned British Rail Engineering Ltd., then back to the publicly owned railway and saw his pension years reduced because of that move? The move was perfectly understandable and part of the promotion chain within that industry, but his pension years were reduced from 11 to three and a half purely because he had made that transfer. Given the fact that the Government want a multiplicity of railway operators, what guarantee can the Minister give now, not at some time in the future, that that will not happen after this wretched Bill has been enacted?

Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the hon. Member for Makerfield will bear out the fact that the whole question of transfer rights—concerning a transfer from an existing pension fund to another pension fund and back again—affects the ultimate value of a pension. That effect operates whatever kind of pension fund it is. One of my hon. Friends has been trying to improve that problem in recent legislation. However, we shall consider those factors when we look at the structure relating to pension funds in the future.

Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: No, I have been more than generous.
The hon. Members for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) asked about social welfare arrangements. I shall give that matter


careful consideration. It is a complicated subject and there are many different entitlements with many different historical antecedents. As several hon. Members have said, significant assests are associated with them.
If the hon. Member for Don Valley has particular constituency problems, I should be grateful if he would draw my attention to those. He also asked about concessionary fuel entitlements and the position of individuals in his constituency with pre-1947 rights. We are aware of that problem and will try to take account of it in ensuring that our pledge that concessionary fuel will be safeguarded is fully implemented.
We have had a useful debate, but this is not the appropriate Bill in which to have measures such as those suggested in the new clauses. We shall have a chance to return to the matter when we debate the main privatisation Bill later this Session.

Mr. Dobson: The Minister has accused me and, I suspect by implication, a number of my hon. Friends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Particularly you."]—oh, particularly me—of scaremongering about pensions. I wish that I had a publicity machine that could create the amount of concern that is felt about the future of pension schemes in the coalfield communities and those places where railway workers are employed. They are worried not because of what I have said but because of what they observe day in, day out, on television, what they hear on the radio and read in newspapers. No scaremongering is required by me to remind people of what happened to the Maxwell pensioners or the legions of pensioners suffering as a result of earlier privatisations so well listed by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney).
People are bothered about City institutions getting their filthy hands on miners' and railway workers' pension funds and need no reminding about the scandal of BCCI or any other City scandals that have arisen in the past few years. The Government are responsible for those because they have not laid down satisfactory rules in advance, through laws passed in the House; nor have they set up adequate schemes to regulate what happens in the City.
If any Tory Members believe that regulation of the City is adequate, they are even more empty-headed than they have seemed in previous debates. Surely no hon. Member believes that regulation of the City is adequate. Even the Secretary of State for Social Security—God help us—thinks that pensions legislation is inadequate and has promised that it will be changed.
If the Minister wants people to stop being scared about what will happen to their pensions as a result of coal and rail privatisation, there is a simple answer. He can accept the new clauses, or if he wants to change them in the House of Lords, he can table new clauses, formulated by his officials, which will provide the sense of security for which people are looking.
If the law is changed, people will be happier; they will still not be entirely happy, however. The Minister has signally failed to reply to the points made in this debate about the adequacy of the advice that the Government are seeking or which the companies may seek. This Bill is mainly about the advice sought, and the Minister has said nothing about that. He still apparently believes it adequate to seek advice from an organisation such as Smith New Court, about which the Department's own inspectors have said:

They did not understand their responsibilities and they did not make any serious attempt to take proper legal advice.
Apparently the Minister is happy, too, with Ernst and Young, of which the Department's inspectors said:
The auditors failed to carry out their responsibility as auditors".
They had no other responsibilities, but they did not carry out the ones they had.
Apparently the Minister is happy that the Government should seek advice, or that British Coal or British Rail should seek advice, from Price Waterhouse, about which the Department's inspectors—not scaremongering Dobson—had this to say:
Their conduct as regards the non-executive directors and the incoming auditors is indefensible.
The Minister still proposes to give himself powers to appoint the indefensible to look after the interests of miners and miner pensioners, of railway workers and their pensioners. It is no good the Minister smiling in his bland way in the hope that all this will go away: it will not.
Miners and rail workers and millions of others think it wrong that Parliament, given the opportunity to protect some pensions, should fail to do so. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will return to this issue over the next few years. We will continue to pursue the Government to ensure that we get justice for present and future pensioners of these two companies.
Tonight, the Minister has offered every assistance short of actual help. I must take him back to the principles of these pension funds. All provision of this sort is money put by for a rainy day—for the miners and their widows and orphans and for the railway workers and their widows and orphans. They do not save up the money for a rainy day for British Coal or for Intergalactic Property Theft plc or for whoever buys British Coal or gets some options on bits of British Rail. The money in the funds was put there to look after present and future pensioners. They are entitled to protection, and if the Government will not provide them with it, we are entitled to say, and they are entitled to believe, that their money is not safe.
We do not think the money is safe. That is why the law needs to be changed, and no ministerial assurance will convince anyone to the contrary. We are a law-making Chamber, not a place for empty assurances. If the Minister wants to do something to end the disquiet among coalfield communities and railway workers and their pensioners, he has an easy answer: change the law.

Question put, That the clause be read a second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 227, Noes 273.

Division No. 42]
[6.55 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Blair, Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blunkett, David


Allen, Graham
Boyce, Jimmy


Alton, David
Boyes, Roland


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bradley, Keith


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Austin-Walker, John
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Barnes, Harry
Burden, Richard


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Byers, Stephen


Bell, Stuart
Caborn, Richard


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Benton, Joe
Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)


Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Berry, Roger
Canavan, Dennis


Betts, Clive
Cann, James






Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clapham, Michael
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Keen, Alan


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)


Clelland, David
Khabra, Piara


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kilfoyle, Peter


Coffey, Ms Ann
Kirkwood, Archy


Cohen, Harry
Leighton, Ron


Connarty, Michael
Lewis, Terry


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Livingstone, Ken


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lynne, Ms Liz


Cousins, Jim
McAllion, John


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Ian


Cummings, John
McKelvey, William


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)
McLeish, Henry


Dalyell, Tam
McMaster, Gordon


Darling, Alistair
McNamara, Kevin


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Madden, Max


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Mahon, Alice


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mandelson, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Denham, John
Martlew, Eric


Dewar, Donald
Maxton, John


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Donohoe, Brian
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Dowd, Jim
Milburn, Alan


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Miller, Andrew


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Enright, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Etherington, William
Morley, Elliot


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morris, Rt Hon A (Wy'nshawe)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Faulds, Andrew
Mowlam, Marjorie


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mudie, George


Flynn, Paul
Mullin, Chris


Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foster, Donald (Bath)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Foulkes, George
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Fraser, John
O'Hara, Edward


Fyfe, Maria
Olner, William


Galbraith, Sam
O'Neill, Martin


George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gerrard, Neil
Pendry, Tom


Godman, Dr Norman A
Pickthall, Colin


Godsiff, Roger
Pike, Peter L


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pope, Greg


Graham, Thomas
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Primarolo, Dawn


Grocott, Bruce
Purchase, Ken


Gunnell, John
Qum, Ms Joyce


Hain, Peter
Radice Giles


Hall, Mike
Raynsford Nick


Hanson, David
Redmond, Martin


Harman, Ms Harriet
Reid, Dr John


Heppell, John
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Roche, Ms Barbara


Hinchliffe, David
Rogers, Allan


Hoey, Kate
Rooker, Jeff


Hood, Jimmy
Rooney, Terry


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hoyle, Doug
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hutton, John
Sheerman Barry


Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jamieson, David
Short, Clare


Janner, Greville
Simpson, Alan


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Jones, Ms Lynne (B 'ham S O)
Smith, C (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)





Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Wallace, James


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Walley, Joan


Snape, Peter
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Spearing, Nigel
Wareing, Robert N


Spellar, John
Watson, Mike


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Welsh, Andrew


Steinberg, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Stevenson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Stott, Roger
Winnick, David


Strang, Gavin
Wise, Audrey


Straw, Jack
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wray, Jimmy


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wright, Tony


Tipping, Paddy



Turner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tyler, Paul
Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


Vaz, Keith



Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold





NOES


Adley, Robert
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aitken, Jonathan
Day, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Devlin, Tim


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dicks, Terry


Amess, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Ancram, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arbuthnot, James
Dover, Den


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Duncan, Alan


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Ashby, David
Dunn, Bob


Aspinwall, Jack
Dykes, Hugh


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Elletson, Harold


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bates, Michael
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Faber, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fabricant, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Booth, Hartley
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forth, Eric


Bowis, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Roger


Bright, Graham
French, Douglas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fry, Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Gale, Roger


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gallie, Phil


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gardiner, Sir George


Burns, Simon
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Burt, Alistair
Garnier, Edward


Butcher, John
Gill, Christopher


Butler, Peter
Gillan, Ms Cheryl


Butterfill, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carttiss, Michael
Gorst, John


Cash, William
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Chapman, Sydney
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clappison, James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hague, William


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Coe, Sebastian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Colvin, Michael
Hanham, Sir John


Congdon, David
Hargreaves, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Harris, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Haselhurst, Alan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawkins, Nicholas


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hawksley, Warren


Cormack, Patrick
Hayes, Jerry


Couchman, James
Heald, Oliver


Cran, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hendry, Charles






Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Hicks, Robert
Redwood, John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Richards, Rod


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Riddick, Graham


Horam, John
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Hordern, Sir Peter
Robathan, Andrew


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hunter, Andrew
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jack, Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Sackville, Tom


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sims, Roger


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spencer, Sir Derek


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sproat, Iain


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stephen, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luff, Peter
Stewart, Allan


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Streeter, Gary


MacKay, Andrew
Sumberg, David


Maclean, David
Sweeney, Walter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sykes, John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mans, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marland, Paul
Thomason, Roy


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thurnham, Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tracey, Richard


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David


Merchant, Piers
Trend, Michael


Milligan, Stephen
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Moate, Roger
Walden, George


Monro, Sir Hector
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waller, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Needham, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Nelson, Anthony
Watts, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wheeler, Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whittingdale, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Widdecombe, Ann


Norris, Steve
Wiggin, Jerry


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wilkinson, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Willetts, David


Ottaway, Richard
Wilshire, David


Page, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Paice, James
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f''ld)


Patnick, Irvine
Wolfson, Mark


Patten, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


Pawsey, James
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth



Pickles, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Porter, David (Waveney)



Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

SAFETY RECORD (TRANSFEREES)

'.—In the exercise of their powers under section 1, any relevant corporation or the Secretary of State shall require from any person or body being considered as a transferee details of their safety record and policies.'.—[Mr. Snape]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Snape: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause deals with the safety record of transferees in the coal and rail industries. The safety record in British mines has been hard earned over many years, and our safety record in deep mining is widely regarded as the best in the world. That means that entrants to coal mining in the United Kingdom who have any world-wide experience will inevitably have a worse record than that of British Coal or, if they are completely new to the industry, they will have no record at all. My hon. Friends with greater expertise in the industry will speak about the safety regime following privatisation. We look forward, perhaps with more optimism than we should, to detailed responses from the Minister for Industry.
I must say to the Minister, en passant—to use the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), although that does not strike me as the sort of lingo one normally hears in the pubs and clubs of Bolsover—that we should have more details from Ministers about what they propose. There is little point in their saying that we should wait for the White Paper or the Bill. If the House is to legislate properly, Ministers must at least give us the framework of the legislative proposals that they have in mind for both of industries. Safety in both the coal mining and the railway industries ought to be at the top of their list, as it is at the top of ours. It is not good enough for the Minister to tell us that in due course the Government will produce a White Paper and after that they will introduce a Bill. They should do better than give the impression that privatisation of these great industries amounts to no more than a line in an election manifesto or an ideological spasm by Tory Back Benchers.
Safety was discussed fairly briefly on Second Reading but in some detail in Committee. Without repeating anything said in the debates on earlier stages of the Bill, I make no apology for returning to this vital matter. Despite all our discussions and despite long debates in Committee, the word "safety" does not appear anywhere in the Bill. I hope that both the Ministers will ensure that that obvious omission is remedied when flesh is put on the bones of privatisation for both the coal mining and the railway industries.
Those of us who have worked in the railway industry are aware that safety was always a top priority. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister for Energy, who has shown some interest in my notes, is really interested in this matter, I will send him a copy of them. That might enable him to make more accurate contributions than those that he has so far made in the debates on the Bill. I shall be delighted to give way if he wishes to intervene. I understand that it is not usual for Parliamentary Private Secretaries to do that, but nor is it usual for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover to speak French. As we are departing from the norm, we may


as well continue to do so and flout tradition. If the PPS lacks my hon. Friend's confidence—I nearly said sang froid, but thought better of it—we will pass over his lack of contribution.
The British Railways Board chairman said recently:
Absolute safety is our aim. The Board will not treat any level of accident involving risk of injury as acceptable.
I think that the board has demonstrated its concern about safety, particularly after the tragedy at Clapham, by the expenditure, real and proposed, of £200 million a year.
My first question to the Minister for Public Transport, who I presume will be replying to the debate, is this: who will take over responsibility for safety matters after privatisation? I hope that he will forgive me if I cynically answer my own question by saying that I expect that we shall. There will be no great rush from people outside either of the industries prepared to invest shareholders' cash in maintaining or improving safety records in either industry. Responsibility for the improvement of safety records will inevitably fall on the public sector in the case of the mines and, I suspect, on the passengers in the case of the railways. I suspect that we shall hear from the Minister today how much money the Government are putting into the railway industry. What they do is allow British Rail to borrow even more money, which is then repaid through the highest railway fares in western Europe.
7.15 pm
I hope that I am wrong, but I suspect that the Minister will tell us that the industry will bear some responsibility for safety after privatisation but on the whole it will lie with the Department of Transport. That is not good enough, because when anything goes wrong, the Department of Transport will claim that it was merely overseeing safety matters and was not responsible for safety. I suspect that there will be a similar story from the Department of Trade and Industry in the event of a fatal or serious accident in a mine. Both industries need a single authority to oversee safety if we are to maintain the enviable safety records that they have demonstrated over many years.
Overseeing safety in the railways industry is vital because of the fragmentation of the industry that is likely to take place if the proposals set out in the White Paper are approved by the House. A number of people will be involved and their operating measures will impinge directly on safety. For example, there will be the franchise passenger train operators that I understand the Government wish to see. I say "I understand" because we do not know for sure. Although Ministers have expressed the desire to see other passenger train operators than British Rail, they have not given us any sign of how that will come about. However, those franchise passenger train operators will need to be adequately supervised if a proper safety regime is to be maintained.
There will be other passenger train operators because I understand that the Government also envisage individual train operations, both passenger and freight, being undertaken by the private sector. The difficulty of seeing that just those two groups conform adequately to proper safety regimes can readily be appreciated by those of us who take an interest in these matters.
Then there is the track authority itself. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what form he envisages this taking, how it will be composed, whether its members will be appointed by the Secretary of State—another dash of centralisation—and whether they will be selected on the basis of their membership of the Conservative party, as appears to have happened with health authority boards, or on the basis of other, more relevant reasons.
There will be private station owners. Certain Ministers and many Back Benchers, perhaps demonstrating more enthusiasm than brains, have talked about the need to sell railway stations. Any safety regime will need to embrace the activities of such private station owners. I understand that the routine tasks which have traditionally been carried out in the railway industry, such as track maintenance, will be contracted out. How is it envisaged that track maintenance contracts will be properly policed to ensure that track is adequately and safely maintained after privatisation?
I am sure that, under the Government's proposals, train maintenance will also be contracted out. I am referring not just to the cleaning and upkeep of trains—something that the Government have for a long time wished to see their private sector friends involved in—but also to actual maintenance. Presumably that too will be put out to tender, and presumably the private sector will be involved.
Then there are the other people whose duties and activities will impinge on safety—the regulator, whoever he or she is, and, of course the health and safety executive under the railways inspectorate. The nine bodies to which I have referred—there are probably others—will all have responsibilities which impinge directly on safety. We need to hear, if only in outline, how Ministers envisage the duties of those groups being discharged, bearing in mind their safety records and policies—matters to which the new clause refers.
Safety in the mining and railway industries does not come cheap. Birmingham New Street station, which is not far from my constituency, is currently undergoing extensive safety work at the behest of the fire authority. I understand that about £11 million is being spent on that station because someone in the fire authority decided that, as the bulk of the station is below street level, it is an underground station and that, following the King's Cross disaster, safety measures there are considered to be insufficient. I make no great complaint about that, but in my view the safety regime that outside bodies sometimes force on the railway industry is far more stringent than that imposed on other forms of transport.
Less than a mile from Birmingham New Street station is the Digbeth coach station, which I should probably be over-praising if I were to refer to it as a 19th-century slum. To my knowledge, no one has ever burned to death at Birmingham New Street in that terrible way people died at King's Cross, yet I understand that this safety regime is being forced on British Rail by the fire authority at a cost of about £11 million.
It is difficult to imagine any private sector operator accepting such a responsibility. It is difficult to imagine any private sector operator signing a contract for the purchase of Birmingham New Street or any similar InterCity station, or to operate trains through such a station, without securing from the Government of the day a guarantee that such expenditures would not be thrust upon it.
To protect the average motorist from the consequences of his or her own folly, British Rail is incurring similar expenditure on level crossings around the country. In this context, I should say that members of the public who travel by train do not have the benefit of free railway warrants such as are issued to Members of Parliament. Of the amounts spent on level crossings, 50 per cent. must be met from British Rail's own resources. Is it envisaged that the private operators will pick up such bills?

Mr. Adley: You must be joking.

Mr. Snape: I am not joking. I am not given to humour in respect of such matters. But these are relevant questions. Consider the east coast main line. One can envisage considerable costs falling on the public sector—costs that could not be defrayed from the receipts derived from high-speed trains hurtling at 125 miles per hour over level crossings. This expenditure will have to be defrayed out of the public purse, yet in the context of these proposals the Government have said nothing about it.

Mr. Milligan: The hon. Gentleman implies that private rail operators will find it very difficult to afford the necessary safety. Has he studied the situation in Japan, where there is a large public network and an even larger private network? Has he noticed that the fatality records of the two networks there are almost identical—within two decimal points?

Mr. Snape: I have studied the situation in Japan, as the hon. Gentleman obviously has not. The myth of the privatisation of Japanese railways is regularly propagated by Ministers and is obviously believed by the more gullible Conservative Back Benchers. Anyone looking at the supposed privatisation of certain railway undertakings previously operated by Japan National Railways will see that it is in no way on the same lines as that envisaged—I have to use the word "envisaged" as we have no real details—by Ministers and certainly by some of the more idealistic Conservative Members.
The rump of the publicly owned British Rail, or taxpayers at large, will be expected to meet the cost of level crossings between London and Edinburgh. I forget how many there are, but it is certainly more than 100. And the British Rail rump to which I have just referred will be bereft of the profits of the east coast main line because of the intervention of organisations like Stagecoach and Virgin Rail. I expect that, well before they sign any contracts, such undertakings will ensure that they are not to be held responsible, financially or in any other way, for those crossings.

Mr. Milligan: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I am not talking about the proposed privatisation of the ex-JNR lines; I am talking about lines that have been in private ownership for many years, by which two thirds of Japanese passengers travel.

Mr. Snape: I agree that there have been private railways in Japan for many years. Presumably those private railways themselves installed the infrastructure many years ago, and presumably they are responsible for costs of the type about which I am talking. [Interruption.] Once again the hon. Member for Colne Valley, the Minister's Private Parliamentary Secretary, with fingers in various orifices, makes some odd noises. I should think that the system in Japan works as I have indicated. If the hon. Gentleman

has some evidence to the contrary, or some personal experience of how the system there works, let him break his vow of silence.

Mr. Graham Riddick: It was a good question.

Mr. Snape: It may have been a good one, but it was not very relevant.
The point that I am making to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan), who intervened quite properly, is that in the case of British Rail that is not the point from which we are starting. What we are talking about is the introduction of private services on an existing publicly owned railway. I suspect that the rump of the publicly owned railway will remain responsible for the costs that I have outlined, and that the new jazzily painted privately owned railway companies will avoid any such costs.
My view—I hope that I can take the hon. Gentleman will me—is that, at the very least, the bodies responsible for operating the new privately owned railways should share those costs. After all, their trains will go over the same 100-odd level crossings as will those left in the public sector. What worries me—I am sorry if I have said this too often, but I see a glimmer of understanding in the hon.
Gentleman's eyes——

Mr. Dobson: Ever the optimist.

Mr. Snape: Ever the optimist—perhaps I kid myself.
What worries me is that these costs, which will increase with increasing train speeds, will continue to fall on the public sector as, of course, will all signalling costs arising from modernisation schemes and from the running of high speed trains.
Of course, it is not just a matter of the east coast main line—other areas should be close to the hearts of Conservative Members. In Committee, we discussed who would pay the cost of the proposed resignalling of the London-Tilbury-Southend line, which attracts an enormous number of complaints—usually, but not exclusively, since the general election, from Conservative Members. The Minister agreed, although none to graciously at the time, that the taxpayer would pay the resignalling costs. Presumably, a private operator will reap the benefits of that public expenditure when it operates certain services at certain times of the day on that line.
7.30 pm
Those matters properly concerned us in Committee and they properly concern us today. As yet, we have had no satisfactory responses from Ministers, either in Committee or since. We look forward—this could be the optimist in me again—to hearing something about that from the Minister later.

Mr. Bob Cryer: It is not only Labour Members who are sceptical about privatisation. In the negotiations on the rolling stock for the Leeds-Bradford electrification, the Industrial Bank of Scotland—part of the private sector and believing in the market place—decided that the marketplace was not a good enough guarantee for the leasehold payments from the private sector. It asked the Government to guarantee the payments. That is hardly evidence from the private sector of confidence in privatisation.

Mr. Snape: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in putting that point on the record. The private


sector remains firmly unconvinced about any guarantees for the Leeds-Bradford line, despite a speech from the Minister suggesting that, whatever happened to the passenger transport executive and its responsibilities, something would be done to accommmodate the costs of leasing electric trains. Obviously, the private sector does not accept the Minister's assurances. Perhaps he will strengthen them when he replies to the debate.
I am sure that the Minister agrees that whoever operates the trains between Leeds and Bradford—I suspect that in the end it will be the taxpayer, the poll tax payer or the council tax payer—and whatever that company's safety record, the electrification of the line is well worth while and meets even the onerous costings laid down by the Treasury. It should go ahead.
The safety record of transferees is one with which the Opposition are quite properly concerned. Nothing that we have yet heard has assuaged that concern. I hope that for once the Minister will tell us, at least in outline, what he has in mind so that we can ensure that safety, which has always been of top priority in both industries, is maintained.

Mr. Redmond: I shall make only a few brief but important points about safety, both in the mines and on British Rail. I used to serve on the Doncaster area safety committee, a sub-committee of the area consultative committee until it was decided that it should be a committee in its own right. For three years on the trot, Doncaster held the national record for making the most safety improvements. I am pleased that I was able to play a small part in bringing that about.
Safety is an important factor in the mines. Miners cannot afford to relax for a minute or they are liable to lose life or limb. They must be on the ball. It is also important that the mines regulations are adhered to strictly. From time to time, the NUM has refused to defend people who have broken the regulations. It is 100 per cent. in support of any safety recommendations and regulations that protect the miners.
It is to be regretted that since the miners' strike British Coal has adopted a severe attitude and will not allow the NUM to play a full role in safety matters in a number of pits. The old 1–2–3 inspection teams used to operate effectively in the pits. Members of the NUM would inspect a particular district to ensure that it was complying with the rules and regulations. The NUM wants to continue to do that, but British Coal is reluctant to agree.
If inspectors are allowed to do their job, they may find all sorts of faults within the present system. That would interfere with production, and British Coal does not want that. Those inspectors fulfil an important role and they should be allowed to continue without interference from the management. I hope that the Minister will take note of that point.
If we want to continue the excellent safety record that the NUM and British Coal have built up over the years, we must carefully consider any interference with the 1908 Act. That Act was put on the statute book for an important reason—to stop the horrific accidents in the mines. Not just one or two people were killed; it was often several dozen people. It is important that we do not return to those days. Unless the Bill is watertight, when the private

sector takes over the mines it will disregard safety because it interferes with production. Whether a single pit or a group of pits, it is an important point.
The Minister has previously referred to registered disabled people within the industry. No doubt at some time in the future he will reply to my letter to him on that matter. British Coal is breaking the law, yet the Government sit back and do nothing about it. Disabled people have a right to a job in the industry and British Coal always used to have tremendous good will towards those who were injured in accidents. It found them jobs both underground and on the surface. That is no longer the case and British Coal gets rid of those people. In fact, if someone is above 50 he is pushed down the road with a redundancy payment.
I wish briefly to mention two points about British Rail. There have been a number of accidents where passengers have fallen out of train doors. There have been fatalities and the incidents have been investigated. However, British Rail is sitting back and doing nothing, even though the evidence points in a certain direction. I believe that British Rail sought to suppress the evidence and to prevent its being made public. If British Rail is willing to do that as a nationalised industry, one shudders to think what a private-sector railway will get up to.
Also important is the multi-track signalling equipment that is dotted throughout the country. About eight systems are in operation. One is Scotland fails at times to trigger the signal that there is a train on the track. The signalman looks at his equipment and sees a clear line, when in fact a goods train could have come to a halt on it. In those circumstances, a fast passenger train could be let through. A number of accidents have occurred in that way.
Before any privatisation, a one-track system should be operating throughout the country. Having been delayed on one occasion at Peterborough and diverted around the system, we were informed on arriving in a particular station, "So far and no farther, because there is no driver to take you to King's Cross." A driver is only used to his own section and only recognises his own signalling equipment. A driver should be able to take a train from one end of the country to the other, guided by the same signalling equipment. It is important for safety's sake for the Minister to take the steps necessary to bring that about before any privatisation.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was rather harsh on my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan). I am sure that he did not realise that my hon. Friend is very well versed in the subject. He was pointing out that in Japan, where private-sector railways have operated for a long time, the Government insist that private railway safety standards are exactly as high—no better and no worse—as those that pertain to Japanese National Railways. That has long been the case and it is why, unsurprisingly, both sectors have a similar safety record.
My hon. Friend said that if any private-sector companies eventually run trains on Britain's railways, the House must ensure that the safety standards then applicable are identical to those observed by British Rail. I believe that was my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Milligan: indicated assent.

Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend nods. I trust that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East shares that belief.

Mr. Snape: I am amazed if the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) considered that my reply to him was in any way discourteous. I said that he put a perfectly fair point. If the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) thought that I was getting annoyed, or that I was discourteous, he ought to see me on a bad day.

Mr. Adley: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was looking for trouble where none existed. I am only suggesting that when it comes to rail safety, and to many other issues, a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends will keep a wary eye on what the Government get up to in the months ahead.
The British Railways Board is committed to running a safe railway; to improving safety in the design, installation and maintenance of rolling stock, infrastructure and buildings, by staff and suppliers; to training and supervising staff and contractors to ensure safety; to adopting the best safety practices from other industries; and unfailingly meeting the legal requirements on health and safety that are placed upon it.
In due course, we will want to know that any future legislation will contain a clear commitment to applying those same rules to any private-sector company that seeks to run trains. We will want to know also who will be responsible for implementing safety rules and for ensuring adherence to them.
One of our difficulties is that this is merely a paving Bill, so perhaps it is inappropriate to have too lengthy a debate on issues that we will consider fully when the final legislation comes before us. However, given that new clause 4 has been selected for debate, I will make a couple of further points.
We have a record of more than 150 years of stringent safety rules applied by the House to the railways, both when they were in the private sector and when they became nationalised. It was right to do so, and I seek assurances from the Government that those strict safety requirements will be maintained. It is a matter of regret that, as usual, we operate double standards in respect of safety, as in other spheres, when dealing with rail passenger safety, as opposed to safety for those who use the roads.
I remind the House that my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport has already given an assurance that should satisfy the Opposition and anyone else at this stage in our legislative proceedings. When Standing Committee A debated the Bill at its fourth sitting on 16 June, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for one simple assurance:
As this legislation proceeds, will he assure us now or at an appropriate time that, whatever arrangements may be made in the future to allow, encourage or enable operators other than British Rail to operate trains, in no circumstances will standards of safety lower than those that we, in this House, have for many generations laid upon both public and private sector operators of our railways be permitted to apply to any other company? I hope that my hon. Friend can satisfy that simple request.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport replied:
I shall be extremely brief and give my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) that assurance."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 June 1992; c. 107.]
That was short, sharp and succinct, and to the point.
7.45 pm
In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) got very hot under the collar with my hon. Friend the Minister, over the difference between undertakings given in the House and legislation, but all right hon. and hon. Members know that we are

merely debating a paving Bill. In due course, many of us will want to probe further and to satisfy ourselves. We will want to know whether the financial constraints placed on British Rail—such as the insistence on running single tracks when double tracks were operated in the past—have or have not been a safety factor. At some subsequent stage, that matter is one which I, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East and others will want to probe.
For the present, I am satisfied that we already have an assurance that safety requirements will be built in to the final legislation. I assure the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that I will be keeping a beady eye on my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Tony Benn: I have the honour to represent a mining constituency. As a former Secretary of State for Energy, one of the accomplishments that pleased me most was my ability to bring the mining inspecotorate into the Health and Safety Executive. As those who know anything about the mining industry will appreciate, safety was always a major factor in influencing the Miners Federation of Great Britain, and later the National Union of Mineworkers.
Keir Hardie was elected as a Scottish miner 100 years ago this month, and I had the honour of having his grand-daughter and great grand-daughter to tea today. When I contemplate this legislation, I realise that we are being taken back to the very beginning—even to repealing the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908. Public ownership of the mines was motivated largely by the pressure from miners and a desire to raise safety levels.
Aneurin Bevan used to ask, "Why look in the crystal ball when it is written in the book?" I refer to a document that has been in my possession for 58 years. In 1935, as a child of 10, I canvassed in a constituency, and I found in my archives a leaflet relating to mining safety issued that year by the Miners Federation of Great Britain. It is headed "The Price of Coal", and goes on to say that 7,839 miners were killed and 1,200,042 injured between 1927 and 1934. The dead included
231 boys under 16, 320 lads between 16 and 18, and 294 lads between 18 and 20. The killed and injured include 199,612 lads and boys under 20…The output of coal per man shift has increased by nearly a third since 1924, but wages…have gone down by nearly a sixth…the miners claim an extra two shillings per shift. They offer to abide by the decision of independent arbitrators. The coalowners have refused independent arbitration. The 'national' Government has…refused to take action. The 'national' Government is always on the side of the coalowners.
Those figures are more relevant to safety than a comparison between the private and public railways in Japan. This country had a long history of exploitation of miners for profit before public ownership, at the cost of lives and safety. Many miners fear that they will pay a heavy price for a return to privatisation, when the coal industry will compete with those of Colombia and South Africa and orimulsion and other hideous materials will be brought in. Their lives, wages and living conditions will be sacrificed.
The facts that I have just read out relate to a time before nationalisation. They explain why the miners wanted nationalisation so much. Whatever criticism may be made of the Coal Board—especially of British Coal, the way in which it has been run under MacGregor and the thugs whom the Government put in to crush the NUM—the fact remains that, in the context of safety, the relationship


between the old Coal Board and the NUM was very good. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) said that it had deteriorated since the strike, but that was a product of the miners' defeat in 1985.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: The right hon. Gentleman is presenting us with an historical scenario. I accept that I have not the same experience of a subject in which he has a great and continuing interest. Does he not agree, however, that the legislative control of safety in industries of every kind, from aviation to oil exploration, has moved on? Why should the position necessarily be different in the mining industry?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is right. We have moved on—backwards. When we debated industrial safety before the general election, Mr. Brandon-Bravo—a Conservative Member who subsequently lost his seat—asked what connection hours of work had with safety. I interrupted him at that point. If a Concorde pilot spent 18 hours a day flying, would that constitute "moving on"? Safety and hours of work are integral: that is why so many protections exist.
I do not expect to convert the Minister. I am using Hansard, as I always do, to inform those who read my speech of what they will not read in The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express; that is the purpose of speaking in the House. The Government are winding back safeguards for safety, wages and conditions that it took years of struggle to establish.
British Rail workers have told me—this applies equally to pit workers—that if they report safety hazards, they could be dismissed on the ground that their evidence might damage the company. Safety factors that should be brought into the public domain—if there is an accident, people will ask, "Why did we not know?"—are being suppressed in the interests of the railways. That will happen even more when the railways become a private enterprise.
Let me alert those who read my speech to a way to avoid dismissal. If they petition the House of Commons about safety matters, they cannot be sacked by their employers, because they will be covered by privilege. I am a member of the Privileges Committee; it is not the most exciting Committee on which to serve, as it seems to be concerned chiefly with ensuring that an Official Secrets Act governs the work of Committees as tightly as such an Act controls Government business. Since being appointed to the Committee, however, I have secured a victory in regard to privilege.
A Birmingham shop steward opposed the road race there, which was part of legislation promoted by Birmingham city council, and he petitioned the House. A Birmingham Member drew attention to what had happened: the shop steward had been transferred by the Birmingham city corporation because he had complained about a Bill promoted by his employers. I argued his case strongly in the Privileges Committee, and I am happy to say that the Committee decided that Birmingham city council had been guilty of a breach of privilege. If people who work on the railways or in the mines have any doubts about safety provision and fear dismissal for reporting

those doubts to the press, they should approach the House of Commons. Any Member of Parliament can present a petition, and the petitioner cannot be sacked as a result.
I never thought that privilege—a mediaeval arrangement—would be of use to the modern generation, but, as the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) said earlier, we have moved on. We have moved on to a point at which ancient safeguards are being dismantled, and we must return to even earlier safeguards. I undertake to provide workers with petition forms, and to read out their petitions so that they cannot be sacked.
We are going back to the days of "blood on coal". That was the phrase that we used to hear: when people said that coal was more expensive after nationalisation, I heard miners say in the House in 1950, "There is no blood on the coal now." The Bill aims to increase profit at the expense of safety and at the expense of the wages and conditions of railwaymen and miners. It is a bad Bill, but, if we can put the case across, people will at least understand what it is really about and will be able to protect themselves from the consequences.

Mr. Keith Hill: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is right. In recent years, a new rule has been introduced into the British Rail rule book—rule 114(b), known to rail workers as the gagging clause. That rule threatens any rail worker who publicises a defect in the railway system with disciplinary action up to the point of dismissal. It is a scandal that such an infringement of civil liberties has been introduced into the rule book, and I hope that it will be rescinded under privatisation. I fear that that will not happen, but Opposition Members have always made it clear that its withdrawal would be one of our first tasks in government.
New clause 4 rightly draws attention to the rigoruous safety regime that will be necessary after privatisation. In the railway industry, the closest attention will have to be paid to the operating qualifications of potential owners and franchisees. It is self-evident that, in this country and in Europe as a whole—indeed, worldwide—the experience of the private sector in railway operation is extremely limited. Railway operation is potentially a highly dangerous business, and this country is fortunate enough to have some of the highest standards. There can be no question of any relaxation of those standards; that is why we need close scrutiny of, and the strictest assurances about, the safety record and the policies of potential operators.
In Committee, we had the benefit of detailed discussion about safety matters relating to the railways. On behalf of the Government, the Minister for Energy gave the Opposition a number of reassurances in response to their questions about future railway safety arrangements. Those assurances were reasonably encouraging, and I am grateful to the Minister for Public Transport for his prompt response in writing to me about other matters of concern, as he promised in Committee. I have drawn those replies to the attention of my sponsoring union, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers.
Although we remain opposed to the privatisation project as a whole, we are in some measure reassured at this stage by the replies that we have received. There remains, however, one important matter on which clarification is still required. I shall turn to it shortly and look forward to the Minister's response.
The Government have now offered various forms of undertakings as to the safety requirements that they envisage in paving the way for the possible transfer of ownership and any new franchising arrangements.

8 pm

Mr. Cryer: Did the Minister at any stage say that there would be no legislative attempt to water down absolute legislative provisions and to govern those provisions by the words "so far as reasonably practicable"? By the insertion of those words, the Government remove absolute standards built into the legislation over the years. That is scandalous. My guess is that the Minister will not give such a guarantee because that is what the Government want to do.

Mr. Hill: I recognise my hon. Friend's wide and long experience and interest in the railway industry. To the best of my recollection, those assurances were not given. In the discussions and debates on the substantive measure that we expect in the autumn, we shall have to make sure that those provisions are included in the Bill.
In response to the concern which has been expressed at reports that the Government were applying pressure on British Rail to complete its safety standards by the end of September this year, I am pleased to say that they have stated clearly that that is not the case. In response to the concern about whether potential operators will be required to meet specific safety standards, the Minister for Public Transport wrote to me saying that those specific standards will be required. I was pleased to hear that. The Minister has also said that those specific standards will be monitored and enforced. Given the staff shortages and the burden of work facing British Rail's audit department, there was concern about this aspect. It is to be assumed that the Government will ensure that the monitoring and enforcement agencies will be properly financed and properly equipped for the new task before them.
We have also raised questions about the date on which access of non-British Rail operators to the system will take place—again against the background of reports that the Government envisage that such access will occur from 1 January 1993. The Minister has explained that this date applies only to a specific and limited category of international services affected by European Community directive 91/440—certain international groupings of railway undertakings and operators of international combined transport in all European Community countries. When the Minister wrote to me, he also said:
More general rights of access for operators of domestic services will not be available until after the main privatisation legislation has received Royal Assent and the necessary regulatory schemes established.
If we are to have a privatised railway system, that is certainly what we would expect Government policy to be. It is therefore in this context and in the context of the concerns set out in new clause 4 that I finally seek clarification of the time scale in relation to the introduction of new operators to the network.
In the report presented to the Secretary of State by the Health and Safety Executive entitled, "Ensuring Safety on a Liberalised Railway", there is a reference on page 6 to the Government's intention to liberalise access in three phases. The second and third phases relate to the need to implement European Community Directive 91/440 and to the Government's larger plan for full liberalisation, with both of which we are familiar. However, the first phase,

and this is central to new clause 4, involves a request made to British Rail by the Government—I emphasise "by the Government"—to co-operate voluntarily with Government policy by allowing new, independent operators on to the network.
The logic of that phasing appears to mean that British Rail is being asked to permit access prior to the enactment of the legislation. I accept that the legislation in question could be legislation implementing the European Community directive and not legislation leading to full liberalisation, but there remains a general uncertainty, notwithstanding the Minister's written reassurances that British Rail may be required to allow domestic operators on to the system from 1 January 1993.
The Minister is aware that according to the Health and Safety Executive the process of reworking the railways' current operational and technical standards, to be applied to all operators, will take until 1994. It is widely recognised that this is an enormously complex and time-consuming process. The Health and Safety Executive alludes to the fact that it took a team of British Rail engineers no fewer than six months to write the engineering specification for the introduction of the Foster Yeoman locomotives, the only example so far of a private concern running operational services on the network.

Mr. Milligan: The hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says that Foster Yeoman is the only company operating a private service. Other companies do that. Tiger Rail and a number of other services, such as the Orient Express and the Scottish Highland service, are run by private companies.

Mr. Hill: I was referring to Foster Yeoman's involvement in the operation of locomotives and to the fact that that is the most expensive operation of locomotives on British Rail's network. There is also expensive and extensive running of privately owned wagons on the system, but locomotive operation is primarily in the hands of Foster Yeoman.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I anticipate that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy will be winding up the debate if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it may help if I respond briefly to that point. Events have moved on since my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Transport's letter to British Rail about voluntary access. He never envisaged that British Rail would do other than provide the drivers for those trains, but I can confirm that we propose to publish a White Paper and to introduce legislation. Access to the domestic railway network by franchised trains and third party operators must wait until we have a proper regime for charging for track access and until we have received the advice of the Health and Safety Executive and the commission on the safe operation of the railways.

Mr. Hill: I am most grateful to the Minister. The purpose of my speech may well be said to have been fulfilled by that reassurance. The framework of the new safety regime on British Rail must lie in the hands of British Rail officials whose skill and experience will not be available to new operators. How could it be? That is why the question of the date of access is vital to many of those


involved in the railway industry. That is why both they and I welcome the precise reassurance that we have received on this.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: The safety and health of mineworkers must be the paramount consideration in the mining industry.
Those are not my words but those of the Minister for Energy, speaking in Nottinghamshire only a few weeks ago. They are supported by the management and work force of British Coal.
British Coal has the best safety record in the world. It is twice as good as Germany's and five times better than that of the United States. It is between 50 and 100 times safer to work for British Coal than in South Africa, Russia, Colombia or China. It is important to realise that the safety record of private contractors operating in the same mines as British Coal is twice as bad.
British Coal's safety record is second to none, but it can be improved, and in parts of the coalfields people have worked to achieve that improvement. About two years ago, the safety record of the Nottinghamshire group was one of the poorest in the country; today, it is the best. In the past year, there have been no fatal accidents in the Nottinghamshire group. There has been a 34 per cent. improvement in the three-day accident period, and a 24 per cent. target has been set for the current financial year. It appears that that target will be met, because in the first two months of the year the figure is 60 per cent. better than for the same period last year.
Within two years, the Nottinghamshire group's safety record has gone from being one of the poorest in the country to the best. It is important to focus on why that has happened. In part, it is due to good new equipment—investment in plant and equipment is important—but it is important to recognise the real reason: British Coal training and educating the work force and taking time to work with men so that their safety and the safety of their colleagues is seen to be important. That is the real cost to the organisation, but it is an asset in terms of lack of injury and of fatalities.
That has been achieved by creating a corporate culture of safety, where everybody works to achieve safety. It is important to note that it has not been done by policing or by the mines inspectorate setting high standards.

Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says: Nottinghamshire has a tremendous record. He said that the benefit was a loss of injuries and fatalities, which is a tremendous benefit, but does not good safety training in turn lead to more productive mineworkers and mining methods? It is not only a good investment for people's health but a good economic investment.

Mr. Tipping: It certainly is, but the problem facing the industry is the drive for productivity. Pits throughout the country increased their productivity by 100 per cent. in the past five years. Men have been removed from the workplace to be trained. Gains have been made elsewhere, but the cost of that training is a loss of productivity.
That training record is under attack. The pit deputies' role is under threat. The 10th draft of the administrative package is out for consultation and debate. The real

tension is about that new draft. At present, the pit deputies and the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers look after safety. Their role will be changed radically from being whistle-blowers concerned about maintaining safety in the pit to being involved in productivity. There are clear dangers in that confused role. As the Health and Safety Commission has recognised in writing to the Minister, privatisation poses British Coal and the deep-coal industry a real challenge. It is clear to me—I think that it is clear to everybody who works in the industry—that under privatisation productivity and profit will have to increase even more.
8.15 pm
I do not know what the final shape of the industry will be in 18 months' time, but it is clear to me that the remaining collieries will have to increase output and profit. The rush to profit and increased productivity will lead to corner-cutting, because men's jobs will depend entirely on their pit being a viable entity. The new owners of the industry should have to comply with the high safety standards that are set by British Coal.
Those concerns are echoed in the letter from the Health and Safety Commission to the Minister. It says:
It will be essential to ensure the continuance of the strong safety culture which exists in mining.
It points to the need for increased regulation.
What I want to argue, and what people in the industry understand, is that it is not regulation that makes safe pits but investment in training and education for safety. That will be under threat even more, depending on the final shape of the privatised coal industry. The high standards in the mining industry are set by British Coal; it is the standard bearer of the world. If the privatised industry is not a unitary but a binary model or a model with many other parts, safeguarding those high standards will be extremely difficult, and later this year we shall have to discuss how the mines rescue service will fit into a privatised industry and how information about accidents and injuries can be disseminated across the earth. Who will do the work that British Coal does on maintaining good-quality safety standards and research into them?
Those are all key issues. The real threat is the knowledge among the work force and management that they must ensure a super-productive privatised industry. If men struggle to save and maintain their jobs, and if their job depends entirely on the output and profit of their colliery, we shall be in danger of returning to the bad old days when there really was blood on the coals.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: An accident that took place on the British Rail Edinburgh-Glasgow line at Polmont was caused by a lack of fencing, which allowed cattle to stray on the line. My question is exceedingly succinct. British Rail has an enormous mileage of line through agricultural land. It maintains fencing and suitable barriers to prevent agricultural livestock from going on to rail. Normally, it has been successful. Who will bear the considerable costs in future?
My second question is that raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). Who will he responsible for the British Transport police and to whom will they report—to the Department of Transport or to the Home Office, or is there to be a relationship between the transport police and the private operators? I have a particular reason for asking because two of my constituents raised that matter.
I was not a member of the Committee, and those who were not members should be brief when called to speak. I end by saying that I hope that the Government will consider carefully what Jimmy Knapp, the general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union, said at the end of last week in Llandudno about a proper safety code. I leave it at that.

Mr. Eric Clarke: As an ex-miner, I can say that miners have earned the right to demand safety. My forefathers and many people in the mining industry paid a high price for the legislation that has been passed, even by this Parliament. We seem to learn only after disasters. We were continually upgrading legislation, supposedly to make life easier, but sometimes legislation was not enacted because there was no organisation to represent the workers. In other words, there was no trade union strong enough to ensure that people who were victimised for raising safety matters were protected; but that is in the past.
To many people, privatisation means unsafe working, poorer health and hygiene and a high accident rate staring them in the face. At the moment, none of the miners in the privatised mines have self-rescuers, which belong to the miners. They were introduced after a fire in the Michael colliery in Fife when men died of suffocation from the inhalation of fumes. If they had had the self-rescuers, they could have gone through the smoke-filled atmosphere into safety and fresh air. The device operates for approximately an hour. An hour will enable a fit man to cover a fair distance underground to reach safety.
Self-rescuers are worn on the miner's belt and belong to him. Privatised mines cannot afford them or do not have them, although British Coal has. What will happen to self-rescuers? Their upkeep and cost are part and parcel of the running of a colliery, but they are a glaring example of what might happen after privatisation. Will the standards he lowered or will the privatised mines come up to the standard of British Coal?
Many other activities have been mentioned, and I refer specifically to those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). What will happen to the rescue brigades which, like the fire brigades, employ people full time? People are on call for a disaster or for any other incident. In between their activities, they maintain their high standards and train people who volunteer as local, part-time rescue brigades. In other words, they maintain the very high standards of a good organisation. What will happen to the first-aid teams and the research and development for new methods?
New materials are being introduced into collieries. The disaster to which I referred was caused by polyurethane being used as filler in gaps in the roof. It was discovered to be highly inflammable, and we all know what happened when it was used in upholstery. It was used in furniture for ordinary houses and people died not from the heat of the fire but from the fumes. Underground, it is 100 times worse, because of the confined area and because there is only one source of air.
Another important aspect is the role of individual members. At the moment, we have workmen's inspectors. By law, they are entitled to examine their own place of work and to involve a particular manager when doing their one, two, three, inspections. Their investigative report must be displayed at the colliery. Within seven days the manager must reply to any comments and act accordingly. A copy of the report also goes to Her Majesty's

inspectorate of mines. In other words, such an inspection is not merely a matter of habit and is not done at the whim of a manager. It is enshrined in the Coal Mines Act 1911 that a person has the right to have his workplace examined and a report sent to the colliery manager for Her Majesty's inspectorate of mines to comment. The trade union also receives a copy of the report in order for its full-time mines' inspectors to follow it up. It is a foolproof method to eliminate accidents before they happen. Every part of the colliery is open for inspection.
We—meaning the trade union movement—take second place to no one in spending money and effort on training our workmen to be competent inspectors, in conjunction with Her Majesty's inspectorate of mines and the management. Will that go by the board after privatisation? Will it be diluted? Will new legislation be introduced?
Albert Wheeler went to the United States and returned with a plan. He found that British machinery for extracting coal was having a phenomal success in long wall production, which was new at the time, as was German machinery of the same type. It was said to bring fantastic production which was colossal in comparison to ours. However, there was a price to be paid. The miners had to go in at the height of the coal. If the coal was 4.5 ft high, that was the height of the roadway. There was no extraction of rock to allow a man to stand up. When he went down the mine or into the slant mine, he did not stand upright until he emerged from the pit.
Even the roof was held up roof bolting—not by girders or props, but by screwing a bolt into the roof. That is putting it crudely, although it was much more technical. I assure the House that it would terrify anyone who went down the mine, because there was no visible means of support. However, men worked—and do work—in those conditions for seven days a week in 12-hour shifts with huge bonuses for the workers at the point of production. Everyone else is paid peanuts, to use American phraseology.
Mr. Wheeler thinks that such a system was marvellous. Lung disease—or black lung, as it is known in America—was at its highest because of the dust count and, in addition, some roadways or sections in the collieries were single roadways. There was not even an ingang or ausgang, as it is called in mining terms. There was only one way in, and we know what happens when a one-way road is closed. Safety was pushed to one side, and that is not an example we should follow. The industry does not want to implement the Wheeler report, or any similar plan.
I want the industry transferred from public ownership with safety absolutely guaranteed. The safety measures which we take for granted must continue, with no dilution of the role of Her Majesty's inspectorate of mines. There must be no dilution of the role of the deputies or of any other senior officials connected with safety or production in the collieries.
8.30 pm
I said in Committee that safety does not always mean that one does not get production; the truth is the opposite. Safety means production. The Piper Alpha disaster in the North sea was a disaster for production. Of course, it was a bigger disaster for the people who died and for their dependents.
There are lessons to be learned. We do not need to tell members of my organisation the facts. We must tell the management and the people who are pushing for


maximum production. I am pleased to see the results of some of our activities. I hope that our efforts will rub off on Conservative Members, on the Minister and even on the Government.
I cannot say enough about safety. As I said in Committee, there is a plaque to Alexander Macdonald. who was a Liberal Member of Parliament in the 1890s. There was no Labour party in those days. Few Liberals know about coal mining, but Alexander Macdonald did. He was a unique individual. The plaque was put up because he brought about legislation that the miners wanted, deserved and needed. We do not put plaques up to dead people for no reason, although I must admit that, when I see some of the plaques in Westminster abbey and in other places, I wonder. Miners put up the plaque to Alexander Macdonald and they are practical individuals who appreciate people who help them. I hope that Alexander Macdonald will not be forgotten, either by the miners or by the Government.

Mr. McCartney: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke). He has been a friend of my father's for almost 30 years in the trade union movement. My earliest memory of my hon. Friend and some of his colleagues in the National Union of Mineworkers dates back to 1959. In my own town of Kirkintilloch, there was a mining disaster through which eight young lads at my school and in the surrounding area lost their fathers. The Auchingeich disaster was caused by a fire in a fanbelt which then engulfed the whole colliery. No one came out of the colliery. On the Sunday after the disaster, I walked with all the community behind a huge cross and stood by the pit gang looking down on the colliery. As a youngster, I took in what had happened and what could happen in future to that community.
When we talk about safety for the mining community, we talk from the experience of our people, not from what we have read in books. Every change in the law in the past 100 years has come about not because of compassion or because of argument by articulate miners through their union, but because of massive disasters.
This debate concerns the historical protection of the mining industry. It is unique in the industries of Britain because of the regulations that have been introduced not to protect the employers' rights in law, but to protect the employees' rights in law. That is not the case in any other British industry.
Under the Health and Safety at Work, etc, Act 1974 and under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988, employers should take steps to avoid risk and to improve conditions. That can be done by weighing costs against benefits to the employers. Outside the mining industry, the health and safety of industrial and office workers is balanced by an analysis of cost benefits and what the employer believes is an appropriate risk. They consider whether it is more appropriate to avoid the risk by taking action to improve the position or whether the cost of taking those appropriate steps is far too high. When the employers have carried out a risk assessment, if they believe that the risk is worth taking in financial terms, it will be taken. That is not the position in the mining industry and we do not want it to be the position after privatisation.
The new clause is vital. I do not mean to criticise my hon. Friends, but I believe that they have been a little shy in coming forward in the way in which they have phrased

it. I hope that the Minister will accept the new clause. By accepting it or by agreeing to introduce a more appropriately extensive amendment in another place, the Government will reassure the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has been less than generous to himself in the wording of the new clause. There are four clear areas that the new clause should cover if it is to mean anything for the railway and mining industries after privatisation. First, the companies concerned must issue a general statement about their approach to health, safety and welfare. It must be made clear that health and safety are as important as production in terms of the organisation's objectives. That should be a statutory requirement.
Secondly, there must be a clear chain of duty in the organisation from the employers to the employees concerning employees' rights under that general policy. Every employee must know whom to consult on safety matters. Someone must be designated at the point of employment to represent employees on health and safety matters, whether those employees work underground. above ground, in railway workshops or in the railway network. Those individuals should have statutory rights to training and to time off with pay for that training.
Thirdly, employers must describe the detailed steps that they are taking to eliminate hazards in each job. There must be a statement about the general environment, including keeping roadways and gangways clear, and keeping doorways clean and in a safe condition. That statement must also include details about noise levels, lighting and welfare facilities. It is vital that such matters should be included in the Bill. There must he details about each machine, substance and process in the pit or railway workshop. Without that, the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act cannot be operated effectively on behalf of the employees.
Contractors will increasingly be brought into the mining industry. For workers such as contractors and those on night shifts, there must be clear statements that those who work in special conditions are also covered by the general policy statement on health and safety and that they are also represented by the designated health and safety officer on site. There must be a right for employees to be informed, and to be involved in training and refresher courses introduced by the employer.
Fourthly, consultation is vital. There must be a continuing commitment to the assessment of risk, to the revising of the assessment of risk and to the updating procedures and policies to eliminate risk. If the new clause is to mean anything in reality, those four basic requirements must be included. That is not simply a debating point for the Chamber and it is not enough for us all to go away happy in the knowledge that we have fought the good fight. Fighting the good fight here is irrelevant to people who are 600 or 700 ft down, to people who are working in a railway workshop or to people who are working with substances that can be hazardous to health.
One of the main reasons why I and my hon. Friends in the safety lobby of the Labour movement are concerned about the Government is that, from November 1991 until recently, there have been various announcements by Ministers and hints from British Coal that there will be changes to underground working hours. A regulation on working hours has been in force since 1908.
It ill becomes the Government to say that the reason for change is that they must implement European legislation. What a cheek! The Government have fought tooth and nail about implementing European health and safety regulations that benefit workers. They seem to believe that they can amend the one regulation that will assist the new privatised industry to undermine working conditions for underground workers. That is totally unacceptable and the Minister should give a clear commitment that no British Government will introduce legislation or commit themselves to regulations from Europe that will undermine the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908.
Whenever the Prime Minister answers questions about Europe at the Dispatch Box, he makes it clear that the House will be responsible for our legislation. If that is the case, the Minister for Energy must make it clear that he will not implement anything that will undermine that position.
The Health and Safety Commission proposes to undermine regulations about silicosis. Silicosis is one of the most dangerous hazards known to miners. It is black lung and it causes pneumoconiosis. Each year, thousands of industrial workers die, are severely injured or have to retire early from work as a result of the effects of silicosis. Until the announcement by the HSC, we had the strongest anti-silicosis legislation in Europe. However, harmonising downwards is not acceptable because, over the next decade or more, thousands of workers will leave work early because of black lung disease, pneumoconiosis and cancer-related diseases.
We are not prepared to accept an undermining of those principles. Will the Minister for Energy agree to meet a deputation of Opposition Members? If necessary, we will work with the Government to ensure that the proposals of the HSC which, after all, is supposed to represent workers, are not implemented and to ensure that the present legislation is protected. Workers would then be able to go to work even in dangerous conditions and have at least the minimum standard required to ensure that they leave the pit in one piece at the end of a shift and, at the end of their working lives, they do not die from black lung disease or pneumoconiosis.

Mr. Clapham: New clause 4 is appropriate for British Rail and British Coal, but I want to relate my remarks to British Coal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) eloquently explained how the safety culture in mining had been brought about from the bitter experiences in the inter-war years to the position after 1947 when market forces were largely mitigated within the new National Coal Board. As a result of that, the safety record was improved.
British Coal is now the safest deep coal mining industry in the world. That record has evolved through the co-operation of the work force and the management. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield identified the strains that caused the safety position to deteriorate in the inter-war years and no doubt they will re-emerge following privatisation.
Since 1980, protection for the British coal mining industry has been revoked and we have seen how pressure passes from the international coal market through the industry to reach collieries. That pressure will intensify and it is clear that with such pressure in a privatised industry, corners will be cut. It is essential that the

Government accept new clause 4 so that the powers under the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 can be passed on and that strong legislation and the powerful safety culture can be continued.
As the Minister for Energy is aware, throughout the 1980s the industry went through a second technical revolution. Mining is now a semi-automated process. The number of men employed on a coal face today is much smaller than it was just 10 years ago. Some coal faces of 250 m are run with only five men. There have been enormous achievements in productivity. As the Minister is aware, productivity has increased by 150 per cent. since the miners' strike ended in 1985. That increase in productivity has occurred because of the application of a skilled work force and high technology. At the same time, the number of serious injuries and fatalities has fallen. That is a great tribute to the men and to management.
8.45 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) stressed that British Coal has a better safety record than its competitors in Australia, America and south America. He drew our attention to the safety record of private mines in this country. People do not often compare the safety record of private mines with that of British Coal. There are 160 private mines in the country and the record of fatalities and serious injuries in private mines is greater than it is in the publicly owned industry.
There are 1,800 people employed in the private deep mining sector and there were two fatalities last year. That is one fatality per 900 workers. For British Coal, the equivalent figure is one per 5,000 workers. Would privatisation result in a diminution in safety standards and thus lead to a large decrease in safety in the public sector? That aspect is worrying the miners unions, particularly when they consider the mining companies which operate in America, Australia and South Africa.
We urge the Minister to look carefully at the present position in British Coal and particularly the role of the deputies. The deputy's safety role is paramount. He is a supervisor who is responsible for production, but he is also responsible for safety. Together with the workmen's inspectors as provided under section 123 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, the deputies have managed to achieve a reduction in the number of accidents and likely incidents.
The Minister should ensure that the role of the deputy continues irrespective of the structure of the privatised industry. The deputy's role is essential for safety. Section 123 inspectors should also be retained, perhaps with improved powers. Under a privatised industry in future, a section 123 inspector should have the right to stop a job if he determines that there are unsafe practices or that a machine is defective. He should be able to do that without any fear of retribution as a result of those decisions.
The Minister for Energy should consider those suggestions seriously and ensure that, whatever form the privatised industry takes, we have deputies and section 123 inspectors, perhaps with improved powers. In that way, we can ensure that the strong safety culture continues.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) said that it was not possible to say enough about safety. I understand that, but I shall try to pick up as many points that have been made by hon. Members as possible. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) asked me to agree to see a delegation on


safety matters. Yes, of course: if he wishes to come to talk to me with some of his colleagues, I shall be delighted to see him.
I do not think that there is any disagreement that, whatever system of privatisation is implemented, it is absolutely critical that the safety regime in the coal and rail industries will exist with a view, at the very least, to maintaining what are already by common consent impressive safety standards, and improving them. That objective underlines the Government's approach to safety in the rail and coal industries as we make our decisions on privatisation.
We have to continue with uniformly—I stress the word "uniformly"—rigorous safety standards. I agree with the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) that we cannot have possible—I stress the word "possible"—fragmentation of the coal industry, leading to a loss of safety knowledge or an impairment of safety information transmission systems. That is why I took particular note of the HSC's proposal that there might be some industry-wide safety arrangements and a safety committee.
Several hon. Members asked questions about safety in the rail industry. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred mainly to that matter. We will, of course, set out our safety proposals in the White Paper, but the key principles will be, first, that the HSE will have responsibility for setting out and monitoring standards, as at present—it will have the same role. Secondly, the franchised railway passenger companies will individually be responsible for safe operation. Thirdly, the track authority which will be responsible for track and signalling will have overall responsibility for the day-to-day safe running of the railway. I hope that that deals with the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and other hon. Members, but I fear that it might not.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend saying that the track authority will be British Rail and that British Rail will be responsible for ensuring all safety on all railways?

Mr. Eggar: The record will show that the track authority will have overall responsibility for the day-to-day safe running on the railway. Of course, even if my hon. Friend's supposition is right as to who that track authority will be, he will have to wait and find confirmation in the White Paper.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised the circular question of fencing and who will pay for it. That is clearly a matter for the main Bill, and I shall draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport. The British Transport police and to whom they report are also being considered at the moment. I expect more detail about that in the White Paper. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dalyell: I am a little puzzled, as that matter was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). There are crucial decisions that could fairly easily be made in favour of making the British Transport police responsible to a Government Department. If there is no decision, is it not a little alarming to think that the transport police will report to private organisations? What other explanation do we deduce from the Minister's hesitation?

Mr. Eggar: I am always keen to try to help the hon. Gentleman. I can say no more than that the answer will be made clear in the White Paper, which is due for publication, I understand, in the fairly near future. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will be able to comment on that point.
Most of the debate has concentrated on safety in the coal mining industry. I was fascinated by what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) had to say, with his 1935 leaflet. Nobody is disputing for a moment the catastrophic safety record that existed before nationalisation in many—not all—private mines. Everyone who has any knowledge of economic history recognises the considerable sacrifices that were made by many miners and their families.
The supposition on which the right hon. Gentleman based his thesis was that somehow, because ownership of the mines will be returned to the private sector, we will be re-creating the pre-nationalisation safety record. That is not borne out by the record of the private mining industry, for example. It has considerably improved its record. One can always discuss safety statistics, but its record is more or less comparable with that of British Coal. As everybody knows, British Coal's record is among the best in the world.
The other thesis that the right hon. Gentleman advanced is that there had been a deterioration in safety since the Scargill strike. He put that down to a lack of relationship between the union and management. His hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood gave the right hon. Gentleman part of the answer. There was and has been clear improvement in Nottinghamshire over the past three years because of a major effort by management and the work force. According to the statistics, since the Scargill strike there has been a steady decline in the rate per 100,000 man shifts of all reported injuries. That is a very sharp and welcome decline. The right hon. Gentleman's basic thesis seems to be severely flawed.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) referred to the employment of disabled people. I can assure him publicly that I shall respond to his points in writing. If he will forgive me, I will not take the time of the House on that matter now.
The hon. Member for Midlothian raised, as he has done on previous occasions, his concerns about roof bolting and its safety implications. I do not know whether I have done so before, and if so I apologise, but I invite the hon. Gentleman to visit Rufford colliery which I have visited and which is pioneering roof bolting. That colliery is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sherwood. The hon. Member for Midlothian should talk to the men and the NACODS deputy there about what they think about the method of roof bolting that is being introduced in that mine.
I accept that the simple transfer of American roof bolting practices into United Kingdom geological conditions would give rise to considerable concern and would not be approved by the HSC. They are different geologically, and the stresses, particularly where there are overhead workings, are different. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman make that visit if he has time during the recess, because it opened my eyes and was interesting.
He also asked about self-rescuers. Licensed mines will be subject to the requirements of the personal protective equipment regulations and, where appropriate, they will be required to provide whatever protective equipment is


demanded by the assessment that must he carried out, so there will not be a differential system. The level of risk safety assessment will he important in determining the position of self-rescuers.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) also asked about rescue facilities. I assure him that we are carefully considering the appropriate way forward.
9 pm
Most hon. Members who spoke raised the question of new changes to the mines health and safety law and particularly its consequences for deputies. As the House knows, those mattes are for the HSC and the HSE. The HSE has carried out extensive consultations and is now on its 10th draft. That consultation process started well before the privatisation issue arose. I assure the House that the new regulations, which are the responsibility of the HSC and HSE, will not mean a change from a statutory to a voluntary basis for the safety inspection and supervision duties currently carried out by deputies. The HSC has always intended that the new proposals will be statutory, so we shall have a chance to consider those.

Mr. Benn: One issue with which the Minister has not dealt. to which I and one of my hon. Friends referred, is the penalty of threat of dismissal to British Rail employees now, or possibly to employees in the privatised mines, if they report safety defects which they believe might endanger fellow workers or the public. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that nobody will be punished for bringing into the public domain defects that may affect the health and safety of others?

Mr. Eggar: I would take a dim view of measures taken by management to impair the employment prospects of someone who genuinely—I stress genuinely—expresses concern about safety matters.
A number of hon. Members have spoken about the dedication of the unions and management to high safety standards within coal mines. I have no quarrel with that. I have forgotten which hon. Member stressed that, whatever else happened, the NUM would not go out of its way to defend a member acting in breach of safety regulations. That is an important statement, and I am aware of the commitment within the mining industry to high safety standards. I am not aware of a case like that described by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, and I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Redmond: This is an important point. The Minister is obviously not aware that British Rail suppressed a report. Had those involved brought it to the public's attention, they would doubtless have been transferred down the line. My right hon. Friend made a valid point about the safety of other people. It is vital that, if employees report defects to management, and management do nothing and allow the deterioration or lack of safety to continue, those employees should be protected against disciplinary action if they bring the defect to the public's notice. That must be right for safety.

Mr. Eggar: I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. As he guesses, I am not aware of the circumstance that he cites, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport was listening to the exchange, and he will look into that matter.
I agree that, if someone reports his safety concerns through the proper channels, it would he quite wrong for

disciplinary action to be taken against him. I am not aware of such cases in the mining industry, but if there have been some I would like to look into them and then decide what to say about them.

Mr. Eric Clarke: We are talking not just about development but about the approval of plant and machinery and of processes and materials. Machines that go underground have to be approved as safe. I do not want to go into detail now, but this is as important a matter as the others that we have been discussing, and we want assurances on it—without them, there could be disasters.

Mr. Eggar: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's point and I will ensure that it is covered. I cannot give him an instant explanation of how we will deal with it: it is one of a number of issues that we will be examining, and I hope that, when the main Bill is published, I w ill be able to satisfy him in the subsequent debates.

Mr. Snape: The Minister began by saying that it is not possible to say enough about safety. He has just proved that it is possible to spend 15 minutes without saying a great deal about it. His response was less than satisfactory, especially on the future role of the deputies and the safety inspectorate in the mines. He seemed to use the "leave it to the Health and Safety Executive" technique.
We all admire the work of the HSE. but given the responsibilities being thrust on it for both industries, we need some reassurance that its budget will be considerably increased and that the shortage of personnel qualified to carry out some of these tasks will be dealt with sooner rather than later.
As some of my hon. Friends have said, it has been pressure applied to management by those who work in the industry and their representatives that has brought about changes in the legislation governing safety in both industries. I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) talk about new clause 4. Once or twice over the years, I have heard him discuss the old clause 4, if memory serves. Be that as it may, he made the right point about deaths in mining. What he said applies equally to deaths in the railway industry.
In the days of steam locomotives and single wagon loads, the rate of attrition among railway workers amounted to two or three people a day. Their deaths did not make the same tragic impact as some of the mine disasters, but both industries proved highly dangerous to those who worked in them. It was largely due to the efforts of those who worked in them and of their trade union representatives that the safety record of both industries improved so much.
We know from the history books that improvements such as continuous brakes on trains, proper signalling systems, the abolition of gas lighting in railway rolling stock and better hours of work came about because of pressure by workers. Those improvements cost a great deal and were consequently opposed by the private sector managers of the day, many of whom, bewhiskered and top-hatted, sat on the Conservative Benches, as some of them still do—[Interruption.]
Conservative Members groan, but I must remind them that it was only the railway directors and mine owners of 100 years ago who proved resistant to safety measures. I invite them to cast their minds back five years to the Zeebrugge disaster and to memos signed by the


management of Townsend Thoresen about the need for proper systems to alert the captain that bow doors had been properly closed. We all remember some of the sarcastic comments made by the managers in the margins of those reports. They were: "Nice, what would they like next? How much namby-pamby effort do we need?"
The authorship of the comments was denied in the wake of the Zeebrugge disaster, but they show that private sector transport management has always been concerned about the impact of safety measures on budgets. On many occasions private sector management has resisted improvements.

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend gives some historical examples. Samuel Plimsoll, whose safety line saved many lives in the coffin ships, was denounced in the shipping gazettes as a terrorist because of his work for the safety of seamen.

Mr. Snape: My right hon. Friend graphically illustrates the fact that those who cross management for any reason are all too often labelled terrorists or, to bring the parlance up to date, as militants by management who always resist improvements.
It is not just the private sector which is at fault, nor is it always in the past that safety improvements have been resisted. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) spoke about a railway employee who wrote a critical report about sectorisation on British Rail and the causes of the Newton train accident. The report was written not by an ordinary rank-and-file railwayman, but by Peter Rayner, who was the regional operating manager of the former London Midland region. Because of his trenchant criticisms of sectorisation and its impact on railway safety, he was, if I may use the railway term, shunted into a non-job and then shunted out of the industry.
That safety manager blew the whistle on unsafe practices caused, in his opinion, by sectorisation. Such problems will be much worse when private operators are franchised to run parts of the railway system in the way that the Government envisage. On this, as on so many other issues, the Minister's reply was inadequate, because he does not know. The Government argue, "Leave it to us. Just vote the necessary expenditure and leave the rest to us. We will publish a White Paper."
As I said in Committee, if the mayor and leading councillors in the borough of Sandwell turned up at the Department of the Environment and asked to be allowed to spend millions of pounds on a scheme that they were not prepared to define or tell the Secretary of State about, the men in white coats would rush them away before they could make a presentation. That is what the Bill is about.

Mr. Eggar: You said that in Committee.

Mr. Snape: I make no apology for repeating it. I may have made the point better in Committee, but the Minister's response this time was no better. If he does not take the grin off his face, I shall repeat the anecdote on Third Reading and see what sort of response we get then. The Minister's replies on safety were inadequate, and I invite my hon. Friends to support the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 267.

Division No 43]
[9.15 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Galbraith, Sam


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Galloway, George


Allen, Graham
George, Bruce


Alton, David
Gerrard, Neil


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Godsiff. Roger


Ashton, Joe
Graham, Thomas


Austin-Walker, John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Barnes, Harry
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Griffiths. Win (Bridgend)


Bell, Stuart
Grocott, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gunnell, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Hall, Mike


Benton, Joe
Hanson, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Harman, Ms Harriet


Berry, Roger
Harvey. Nick


Betts, Clive
Heppell, John


Blair, Tony
Hill. Keith (Streatham)


Blunkett, David
Hinchliffe, David


Boyce, Jimmy
Hood, Jimmy


Boyes, Roland
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bradley, Keith
Hoyle, Doug


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Brown, Gordon (Dunlermline E)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hutton. John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jackson. Ms Glenda (H'stead)


Burden, Richard
Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Byers, Stephen
Jamieson, David


Caborn, Richard
Janner, Greville


Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)
Jones. Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones. Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones. Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cann, James
Jowell. Ms Tessa


Chisholm, Malcolm
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clapham, Michael
Keen, Alan


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C &amp; S)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Khabra. Piara


Clelland, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kirkwood, Archy


Coffey, Ms Ann
Leighton, Ron


Connarty, Michael
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lewis, Terry


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Livingstone, Ken


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lloyd. Tony (Stretford)


Cousins, Jim
Loyden, Eddie


Cryer, Bob
Lynne, Ms Liz


Cummings, John
McAllion, John


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
McAvoy, Thomas


Dalyell, Tarn
McCartney, Ian


Darling, Alistair
MacDonald, Calum


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McKelvey, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McLeish, Henry


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
McMaster, Gordon


Denham, John
McNamara, Kevin


Dewar, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Mahon, Alice


Donohoe, Brian
Mandelson, Peter


Dowd, Jim
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dun woody, Mrs Gwyneth
Martlew, Eric


Eagle, Ms Angela
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
Meale, Alan


Enright, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Etherington, William
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Milburn, Alan


Faulds, Andrew
Miller, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foster, Donald (Bath)
Morgan, Rhodri


Foulkes, George
Morley, Elliot


Fraser, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)






Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Short, Clare


Mowlam, Marjorie
Simpson, Alan


Mudie, George
Skinner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


O'Hara, Edward
Snape, Peter


Olner, William
Spearing, Nigel


O'Neill, Martin
Spellar, John


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pendry, Tom
Steinberg, Gerry


Pickthall, Colin
Stott, Roger


Pike, Peter L.
Strang, Gavin


Pope, Greg
Straw, Jack


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tipping, Paddy


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dennis


Purchase, Ken
Tyler, Paul


Quin, Ms Joyce
Vaz, Keith


Radice, Giles
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Randall, Stuart
Wallace, James


Redmond, Martin
Walley, Joan


Reid, Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Watson, Mike


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wicks, Malcolm


Roche, Ms Barbara
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rooker, Jeff
Winnick, David


Rooney, Terry
Wise, Audrey


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Rowlands, Ted
Wray, Jimmy


Ruddock, Joan
Wright, Tony


Sedgemore, Brian



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mrs. Llin Golding.


Shore, Rt Hon Peter





NOES


Adley, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carttiss, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Cash, William


Alexander, Richard
Chaplin, Mrs Judith


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clappison, James


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Coe, Sebastian


Ancram, Michael
Colvin, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Congdon, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Aspinwall, Jack
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cormack, Patrick


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Couchman, James


Bates, Michael
Cran, James


Batiste, Spencer
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bellingham, Henry
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Day, Stephen


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Body, Sir Richard
Devlin, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bos well, Tim
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Eggar, Tim


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Elletson, Harold


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Butcher, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Butler, Peter
Evennett, David


Butterfill, John
Faber, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fabricant, Michael





Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Marlow, Tony


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Forman, Nigel
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forth, Eric
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Merchant, Piers


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Milligan, Stephen


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Mills, Iain


Freeman, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


French, Douglas
Moate, Roger


Fry, Peter
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Gale, Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


Gallie, Phil
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gardiner, Sir George
Moss, Malcolm


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Needham, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gillan, Ms Cheryl
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gorst, John
Norris, Steve


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Ottaway, Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Page, Richard


Hague, William
Paice, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Patnick, Irvine


Hannam, Sir John
Pawsey, James


Hargreaves, Andrew
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Harris, David
Pickles, Eric


Haselhurst, Alan
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hawkins, Nicholas
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hawksley, Warren
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Powell, William (Corby)


Heald, Oliver
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Richards, Rod


Hendry, Charles
Riddick, Graham


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Hicks, Robert
Robathan, Andrew


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Horam, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Sackville, Tom


Hunter, Andrew
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jack, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jenkin, Bernard
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shersby, Michael


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sims, Roger


King, Rt Hon Tom
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kirkhope, Timothy
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knapman, Roger
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Spink, Dr Robert


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spring, Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sproat, Iain


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Legg, Barry
Stephen, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stern, Michael


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stewart, Allan


Lidington, David
Streeter, Gary


Lightbown, David
Sumberg, David


Lord, Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Luff, Peter
Sykes, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maclean, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Thomason, Roy


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marland, Paul
Thurnham, Peter






Townend, John (Bridlington)
Whittingdale, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tracey, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Trend, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Trotter, Neville
Willetts, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wilshire, David


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Walden, George
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Yeo, Tim


Waterson, Nigel
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Watts, John



Wells, Bowen
Tellers for the Noes:


Wheeler, Sir John
Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Whitney, Ray

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 5—Disclosure of negotiations as to transfers
', —In the exercise of their powers under section 1 the relevant corporation or the Secretary of State shall disclose to representatives of the workforce and, in the case of British Rail representatives of the passengers, the names and addresses of any person or body with whom they are in contact with a view to transferring to them any fixtures, property, rights or liabilities, within one week of the commencement of that contact.'.—[Mr. Dobson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dobson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this we shall discuss new clause 6—Coal industry consultation (disclosure)

Mr. Dobson: I shall be brief, as I do not wish to detain the House. The objective of both new clauses is straightforward. We believe that, where any person or body shows an interest in buying all or part of British Coal or taking a franchise for any part of British Rail, the names and addresses of those persons or organisations should be disclosed within one week to representatives of the work forces of British Coal and British Rail and to the representatives of British Rail's passengers, in the interests of the open government that the Prime Minister claims to favour. If the Government believe in open government, there should be no problem about disclosing that information.
There need be no secrecy. Those who work in the coal and rail industries and passengers wishing to travel on the British railway network in the future are entitled to know that is happening. We do not believe that those who work in the industries are chattels, to be discussed and distributed as a result of private conversations between business people, Tory Ministers and civil servants. They are not artefacts to be bought and sold, or even to be preserved in a museum. They are human beings. Their jobs are at stake in the privatisation process and they are entitled to know who is trying to become their boss or bosses.
I hope that the Minister will say either that he agrees with the new clauses or, if he does not agree with the detail, that he finds the principle acceptable and that the Government will change the Bill in another place. I need say no more on the matter. I hope that the Minister will be equally brief in his reply.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and I are deeply concerned about one aspect of disclosure covered by new clause 5. I refer to the

electrification of the Leeds-Bradford railway, and to the leasing of the rolling stock. The Industrial Bank of Scotland has clearly stated that in the absence of specific legislation and of a Government guarantee that after privatisation, the leasing payments will continue to be made—by the Government, if necessary-it is not prepared to pursue negotiations with West Yorkshire passenger transport authority. The scheme is therefore lurching from crisis to crisis.
The Minister visited Leeds this morning to take part in one of a series of negotiations. The PTA, the manufacturers of the rolling stock in Leeds—Hunslet, and the passengers affected are greatly concerned.
The Bill has thrown a spanner in the works in respect of the provision of rolling stock on that section of the line it is proposed to electrify. A new clause that requires information about organisations engaged in the transfer of assets under clause 1 would be welcome. It would potentially ensure greater knowledge and certainty for organisations that are helping the PTA by leasing rolling stock.
As the Minister knows, the Government insisted on the PTA leasing the stock. The Minister shakes his head, but I well recall that that option was the one which the Minister said the PTA should take. I believe that he is sympathetic to the electrification scheme and wants it to go ahead. At a meeting in Bradford last Friday attended by representatives of the chamber of commerce, Members of Parliament and councillors from both major parties, all expressed enthusiasm for the scheme and urged the PTA to go ahead with the leasing arrangements.
The problem is that the organisations with which it needs to reach agreements, such as the Industrial Bank of Scotland, say that privatisation places the leasing of the rolling stock in jeopardy. The PTA is looking at concluding an arrangement with other institutions for leasing the rolling stock that would not depend on a Government guarantee in the event that privatisation unfortunately went ahead. The PTA itself might be in jeopardy.
When the Minister was in Manchester on Thursday morning, he said that PTAs and passenger transport executives would in no way be affected by privatisation. I hope that he will repeat that assurance when he winds up. New clause 5 represents a small step towards providing information to bodies—not those under Labour control—such as the Industrial Bank of Scotland. It is a private enterprise bank, but says that privatisation is in effect placing a question mark over the future of the body or bodies that are currently entering negotiations concerning the provision of rolling stock.
As the Minister knows, it is vital for Bradford that the electrification scheme goes ahead, InterCity services are wholly dependent on that happening. As was made clear at Friday's meeting in Bradford city hall, if electrification does not take place British Rail will have to consider whether current method of taking the sparse inter-city service from Leeds to Bradford remains a viable option.
Electrification of local lines would provide decent passenger services and a decent capacity, neither of which exists at present on the rush-hour services between Leeds and Bradford and up the Aire Valley. It would also give British Rail the opportunity to expand the London-Bradford InterCity service. Surely the Minister wants the service to be expanded and improved, so that people will be encouraged to travel by rail rather than by road.
Bradford is a fine city; it is the queen of Yorkshire cities. Surely it deserves, and needs, an electrified railway network as part of the inter-city service. At present, a diesel locomotive has to drag the whole electric train, including the power unit, the trailer car and the coaches, en bloc to Bradford, and then propel them back.
If new clause 5 were passed, a bit of background information could be provided to give financial institutions more certainty. It does not go far enough, but at least it would be a step in the right direction. I hope that the Minister will give me the assurances that I require, and that, if he does not consider the new clause satisfactory, a provision with similar wording can be tabled in the Lords.

Mr. Max Madden: I wish to endorse everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), and to stress the importance to Bradford's economic future of the speedy implernentation of the West Yorkshire electrification scheme.

Madam Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman had an exchange with one of my deputies earlier. I hope that he will relate his speech directly to the new clause.

Mr. Madden: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he can present a measure in the House of Lords to allay the anxiety of financial institutions about the effects of privatisation on British Rail and the future of passenger transport authorities, especially in West Yorkshire.
We have heard some powerful speeches, expressing the anxieties about privatisation felt by many British Rail and coal mining workers. I hope that the Minister will tell us that a formula has been found to enable the contract leasing arrangements to go ahead; so that the West Yorkshire PTA can purchase new rolling stock and this important scheme can proceed on schedule with the maximum urgency, bringing to West Yorkshire the benefits that are an integral part of the scheme.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Bradford. West (Mr. Madden) gave us as an example the disclosure of the identity of a possible transferee on the West Yorkshire lines. Clearly, that is highly appropriate: the new clause would require British Rail to disclose the identity of parties consulted by British Rail, the Department of Transport or—in relation to British Coal—the Department of Trade and Industry.
I shall deal first with the argument of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and then with the points raised in the context of new clause 5 by the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). The Government do not believe that either of the new clauses is appropriate. Therefore I do not commend them to the House. However, I agree with the thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras: it would confuse employees and users of British Rail if there were to be constant identification of the names and addresses of all parties with whom there had been conversations, for the obvious reason that a number of the applications will not proceed.
I have had conversations with about three dozen potential railway franchisees and freight operators. I have not disclosed their identity. Some have done so, but that must be a matter for them. It would not be in the interests

of the 136,000 British Rail employees or of British Rail passengers if there were speculation at this stage about who may or may not be interested.

Mr. Dobson: One of the objects of the exercise is to end speculation. There would be no speculation if the new clause were accepted. All that the Government would need to do is publish a list once a week of the names of those with whom they had had conversations. There will he speculation if the Government do not publish a list. People will start to wonder who the Government are talking to and who they intend should be the bosses. They will speculate about the record of these outfits, if they are so ashamed of their contacts with the Government that they will not disclose their record, and if the Government are so ashamed of these outfits that they, too, will not disclose their record.

Mr. Freeman: That does not correspond with the real world. If we, or British Coal or British Rail were under an obligation to publish those names, we should find that some parties who are genuinely interested in operating railway services would be reluctant to come forward.

Mr. Dobson: Why?

Mr. Freeman: Because that is the commercial reality of life. Some parties will want to hold conversations in confidence. If there were a potential management buy-out, as happened in the case of the bus industry, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the management and staff of British Rail, interested in principle in running the franchise on one of British Rail's lines, would like their identity, without necessarily their approval or knowledge, to be published? I do not believe that that would be in either their interests or British Rail's interests.
There will be ample oportunity for those who respond to the competitive process for letting a rail franchise to respond to the tender documents and for the identity of the chosen tenderer, in negotiating the detailed contract both with British Rail as the track authority and with the franchising authority that is to provide any subsidy, then to be fully disclosed. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy has told me that he has provided to the House of Commons Library a list of all the parties to whom he has written and of all those who have responded on the future of British Coal. He has also told me that those who wish to do so can identify themselves and publish their advice.
In the context of new clause 5, may I deal with the points raised by the hon. Members for Bradford, South and for Bradford, West? The Government very much want the electrification project to proceed. I do not believe that the issue is the privatisation of British Rail. The problem relates to the potential privatisation of the passenger transport authorities and the passenger transport executives. They are two separate issues. I am happy to repeat the assurance that I gave in Manchester: that the Government have no intention of changing the status of the PTAs or the PTEs, or the method of their funding. That should go some way towards allaying the fears of the banks involved in writing a particular lease.

Mr. Madden: It is clear from the earlier debates that legislation protecting pension funds is vital. Equally, when the privatisation Bill is introduced, will it be possible to ring-fence PTAs and PTEs from privatisation? That would allay the anxieties of financial institutions, which have


been increased in recent weeks and months and which led the Minister to have five meetings with the PTA to discuss these thorny issues.

Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly give that some consideration, but the White Paper will make the position crystal clear. The hon. Gentleman asked for inclusion of such a guarantee in legislation. I am not convinced that that is warranted or appropriate, but I shall bear in mind what he said, because the Government's intentions are clear.
How do we move forward in the context of new clause 5 to ensure that the project proceeds? At my meeting today, I said that there was no potential transferee for the operations of West Yorkshire railways services. To my mind, the fears of the banking system were misplaced, because we had no intention of changing the proposed arrangements.
9.45 pm
I have undertaken to write to the PTA tomorrow morning. I have said that I am perfectly prepared to talk to bankers to try to allay their fears. I hope that a lease can be written. It is the first time for 70 years that a true operating lease will have been written for the railway industry. Therefore, we are breaking new ground.
I do not believe that the acceptance of new clause 5 would help the case of West Yorkshire electrification. I am confident that that project will proceed and that the lease will be written. It has taken longer than I or those in West Yorkshire would have liked, but there is no doubt in my mind about the outcome.
I hope, with those few brief remarks, that the House will accept my assurances and explanations, and that new clauses 5 and 6 will not be pressed.

Mr. Dobson: We have had a bit of a novelty tonight. We all know about the love that dare not speak its name, but now we have the bids that dare not speak their names. Despite the fact that the Minister has not made any commitments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, hr leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

POWER TO ACT IN RELATION TO PROPOSALS FOR TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS, PROPERTY ETC.

Mr. Adley: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—
'(1A) It shall be the duty of the British Railways Board to communicate its intention to the Secretary of State who, within four weeks, shall present a report of such proposals to Parliament.'.
I move the amendment in the hope that you. Madam Speaker, will accept that it has been difficult throughout the Committee stage of the Bill to know precisely what we were talking about because we had little information. My amendment is related to the provision of information which, I maintain, should have been provided previously by the Government so that we could debate with a little more clarity than has been possible in Committee and even up to Report.
The heading to clause 1 says:
Power to act in relation to proposals for transfer of functions, properties etc.

There are no such proposals. We therefore need more information from the Government and I hope to be able either to extract that information this evening or to obtain from my hon. Friend the Minister guarantees which satisfy me and my hon. Friends that it will be forthcoming shortly.
The House is being asked to pass the Bill with insufficient information. I somewhat philosophically ask my hon. Friend the Minister and the House why there is no White Paper. This is the 14th year of Conservative government. We have had some root-and-branch enthusiasts for railway privatisation—my Lords Parkinson, Moore and Ridley, to name but three—none of whom managed to arrange a meeting place between their political ambitions on the one hand and common sense on the other when it came to producing a White Paper on the possible change of ownership in some parts of British Rail.
Has secrecy precluded the appearance of the White Paper? It cannot be secrecy because we believe in open Government. Is it arrogance? Of course it is not, because the Prime Minister——

Mr. Dobson: She is in the House of Lords, too.

Mr. Adley: I shall resist that temptation, having had one go this afternoon. Once a day is enough, as the actress said to the bishop.
Is it secrecy? No, because we have an open Government who want to provide us with as much information as possible. Is it incompetence? I do not think so. Is it deliberate? I do not know about that. I believe that the answer is much simpler. It is because it is proving so difficult for the Government to produce a sensible White Paper which somehow marries the ambition of one or two of my colleagues with the Government's need and intention to maintain a national rail system. That is the reason why we have not yet had a White Paper.
I put the question simply to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport. Can he assure me that we shall have a White Paper before the Bill receives Royal Assent? To put it even more bluntly, can he assure me that the House will have the White Paper before we rise for the summer recess? In the absence of such a White Paper, I must make certain assumptions to explain why I wish the Government to show a little more determination to produce it before the Bill proceeds much further.
I begin by quoting an interesting leader in The Independent a few weeks ago:
Having wrestled long and not very impressively with the question of how to privatise British Rail, the Government has come up with a minimalist solution. It will allow contenders to compete for franchises to run passenger services, with the possibility of BR's freight and parcels businesses being sold. John MacGregor. the Transport Secretary, said yesterday that BR will be the track authority. A regulatory body will be empowered to decide who should be granted the franchises and to act as referee.
This cautious approach has much to commend it.
Is that correct? Was the writer of that leading article accurately summarising the Government's intentions? If so, are the Government dragging the railway back from what I regard as the abyss or the jungle of total deregulation into which it looked as though it might fall two or three years ago?
One of the hardest tasks that my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have yet to undertake is to realise that the course on which they are embarked will sadly dash the great expectations of


some of my colleagues who dream of waking up one morning to find that the Great Western Railway has been reincarnated. The Government would therefore be doing themselves a favour if they made the position fairly clear fairly soon.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my hon. Friend concede that it would be sheer common sense for the Government to provide more information so that hon. Members could scrutinise the Government's plans? For example, the Select Committee on Energy thoroughly examined the privatisation of electricity and decided that the costs of nuclear decommissioning could not be met. The City and its institutions formed the same opionion and in the end, at least a section of what was to be privatised was not privatised. One must not underestimate the value of the House in scrutinising the work of the Departments. It would be advantageous if information was given to the House before the legislation proceeds much further.

Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend makes a point which is not only interesting but pertinent. If the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) had been in his place, he would have agreed as vigorously as I do. I have not had the opportunity to consider carefully what my hon. Friend says, but he must be right.
As I recall, Lord Parkinson was Secretary of State for Transport at the time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) said, he thought that it would be a mere bagatelle to privatise the nuclear industry. Sadly, the facts eventually proved him wrong. My hon. Friend is right. More information at an earlier date and an opportunity to debate the Government's propositions at an early date could have prevented the embarrassing retraction which had to take place on that occasion.
Will the White Paper deal with the taxation options? Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell me whether I am right in pushing the point? The Germans, for example, have a transport policy which seeks to transfer traffic from road to rail. They do not have complicated debates about ownership, and privatisation of the railways would he regarded as a faintly silly proposition if it were put to the Bundestag. The Germans simply have taxation arrangements which discourage the use of roads for longer-distance freight and encourage the use of rail. Many of us would like to encourage that here.
Where are we going with the paving Bill? How much longer are we to pretend that the future of British Coal bears any relationship to the future for British Rail? The Bill is an illogical and unreal piece of legislation in many ways. There is no reference, in the Queen's Speech or in any debates in Committee, to the complete privatisation of British Rail.
On 18 May—I welcome this totally—my hon. Friend the Minister, in answer to a question of mine, said:
I am sure that this will prove useful in the detailed implementation of our policies for restructuring British Rail."—[Official Report, 18 May 1992; Vol. 208, c. 34.]
That is what the Japanese have done. They have restructured their railways and that may be what we are doing. I suggest to my hon. Friend that, if we knew what was in his and the Government's minds, it would save some people getting themselves embarrassingly stuck on the end of a limb from which they will have uncomfortably to withdraw themselves.
Can my hon. Friend tell us what will he the position on financial support for the railways? Is it to continue indefinitely? What will be the relationship between the recipient of financial support and the providers of franchise-holding services? The word "franchise" is the new in-word emanating from Marsham street. Many colleagues in the House know that for some years I have been involved with a major hotel group which is one of the world's leading franchising operations. I suspect that what the Department of Transport means when it talks about franchise and what some of my colleagues in the House mean when they talk of franchising bear little relationship to what will be in the White Paper. The Government have done the House less than a service in producing a paving Bill on the railways before we have had a White Paper.
What is to be? We have had a useful exchange. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy was helpful a few moments ago when I thought that he confirmed—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will tell us whether what my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy said was correct—that on safety, British Rail will be the track authority and will be responsible for ensuring safety levels whoever operates trains on our railways. That will be a substantial step forward.
We should have liked to see—perhaps we shall—in the White Paper references to, for example, infrastructure costs as between road and rail. Of all the amazing allegations, in The Guardian this morning it is reported that the National Express company is to complain to the Office of Fair Trading about InterCity's 225 service between London and Edinburgh offering prices that are too competitive. We are coming to something when a private sector coach operator, which gets all its track costs provided free of charge by the taxpayer, complains to the Office of Fair Trading about the ability of our nationalised railway service to compete effectively despite the fact that it has to bear all its own track costs.
Track costs are not the only issue. Will the White Paper include details of the true expenditure as between road and rail in relation to the national health service? Some 5,000 people per year are killed and 250,000 are maimed in road accidents. What is the real cost to the national health service? What is the cost to the Department of Social Security of tens of thousands of people being off work because of accidents on the road?
What about the police? British Rail has to provide for its police from its budget. Like everyone else who uses the road, National Express finds that the taxpayer funds the police in that respect. What about the cost of time in our courts? Untold millions of pounds are spent in our courts every year dealing with traffic accidents and traffic offences. What about BR's task of maintaining the heritage?
What about pollution and congestion? Will the White Paper tackle the real questions which should be asked? We need only leave the House this evening to discover a London choking with fumes from the internal combustion engine. One need only blow one's nose to see what the internal combustion engine is doing to the air of this city and of other major cities in this country.
The White Paper should address those issues. I hope that it will do that, but I am afraid that I have some doubt——

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Ordered,


That, at this day's sitting, the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Mr. Adley: There was a story in the newspapers this morning that BR will shortly announce a loss of £150 million. What will we find in the White Paper about that? I attended the annual general meeting of Lloyd's on Wednesday morning, as I am a member of Lloyd's, and I did some quick mathematics. Lloyd's lost £2 billion in the 1989 trading year. British Rail has allegedly lost £150 million in the trading year 1991. That is a loss of £2 billion for 40,000 people in one year at Lloyd's and a loss of £150 million for 50 million people in one year in the depth of a recession on the railways. On the whole, the taxpayers and travellers of this country do not get a bad deal from BR.
What is to be the role of the railway? Will the White Paper attend seriously to that primary question? What is the role of the railway in a modern industrial state? Ownership is an interesting proposition, but whether or not someone can tack a few carriages on here or there is a matter of cosmetic interest.
As usual, there are double standards. British Rail was required by the Government to produce plans for a channel tunnel rail link. The Government said, "Build it as cheaply as you can and make sure that it meets Treasury guidelines." British Rail spent 18 months looking into the matter and buying houses. Then someone else came along and told BR to change the route. In the meantime, the Winchester bypass has been proceeding. I strongly support that, and the taxpayer bears all the environmental costs, but BR is expected to meet Treasury guidelines and to produce a railway which is economically acceptable to the Treasury and environmentally acceptable to everyone.
Those issues should be in the White Paper, but we do not know whether they are. We do not know whether they are relevant to the Bill. As we do not have the White Paper, I have the advantage that I can get away with saying virtually anything in relation to the amendment, because we do not know what is in the White Paper.

Madam Speaker: Order. I shall he listening to the hon. Gentleman very carefully.

Mr. Adley: I will therefore draw my remarks to a close.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport was very good in Committee. He has been conciliatory and helpful. I was one of the first people, if not the first, to make the point that the railways enjoy a unique relationship with their work force, born of the loyalty, enthusiasm and dedication of 150 years of serving the travelling public. I am not speaking as a spokesman of the trade unions—I cannot say that the trade unions have done nothing to cause damage to the travelling public, because they have—but there is a new mood afoot within the railway unions. They should be consulted by the Government as the legislation proceeds. The unions have some interesting suggestions to make and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure me that they will be consulted.
I close as I started, by saying that I do not want to press the amendment to a Division. Nevertheless, I will do so if

my hon. Friend the Minister cannot satisfy my request that the White Paper should appear quickly. I hope that he can do that.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I shall not detain the House for long, but an important constitutional point arises from the amendment. If the amendment were adopted, it would be one redeeming feature of a bad Bill and a bad way of proceeding—pushing legislation through the House. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) repeatedly made the valid point that there is no White Paper. Therefore, if the amendment were accepted, there would be some safeguards and a reassurance that the matter would come back to the House before any hard-and-fast decisions were made. There is great anxiety that, if the legislation is passed unamended, the House will be bounced into franchising or privatising the railways, in particular, without being able to take full cognisance of all the ramifications or being able to influence Government opinion before legislation is lined up and pushed through the House.
I deliberately used the words "constitutional point", because I invite hon. Members to pause to consider that we do not have the White Paper, but that their Lordships may do so when the matter reaches them. It is not only manifestly unfair but wrong in principle that this democratically elected Chamber will not be able to consider the White Paper in advance of legislation, whereas the other place might be able to do so.
I am told by hon. Members who have been in the House longer than I that it is possible that the Bill will have Royal Assent before the summer recess. Other hon. Members shake their heads and say no. It concerns me that we are about to embark upon a long summer recess. The passing of this legislation will signal to British Rail a certain way of proceeding in anticipation of privatisation. My anxiety is that we shall come back to the House in the autumn and either complete certain stages of the Bill's progress or find it already on the statute book. Incidentally, we keep talking about one privatisation Bill in the autumn, but I assume that there will be two Bills. It would be nonsense and quite outrageous for there to be only one Bill.

Mr. Freeman: indicated assent.

Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister nods his head, and I welcome that confirmation: there will be two Bills. My anxiety is that we shall be down the road to privatisation or franchising in a manner which no hon. Member will have been able to influence, and we shall be presented largely with a fait accompli.
If hon. Members consider that remark to be alarmist or without basis, I refer them to the Ports Act 1991, which the same Department that is pushing this legislation through the House produced in the previous Parliament. I studied the Ports Act 1991 this very evening. Very little on the face of the Ports Bill disclosed how the ports privatisation would proceed. It was pushed through both Houses without proper examination.
I am concerned that, in respect of this Bill or Bills that we are yet to see, there will not be proper discussion of the implications of privatisation unless we adopt an amendment such as that which has been moved by the hon. Member for Christchurch. The hon. Gentleman ably explained why it is in hon. Members' interests to have the capacity, apart from on Second Reading and in


Committee, to examine the proposals of British Rail which is charged with facilitating the implementation of the Secretary of State's proposals.
For those reasons, we should support the hon. Member for Christchurch. It is not the fault of the House that there is no White Paper; it is the failure of the Government. They have been dilatory and have let down the House by not producing a White Paper.
The unelected other place may have the benefit of a White Paper. We have a right and a duty to be able to examine the proposals outside the context of the Second Reading of a future Bill. For those reasons, I hope that we shall support the amendment of the hon. Member for Christchurch and that he will not be tempted to withdraw it.

Mr. Wolfson: I wish to support the amendment on the basis of my experience and that of all my hon. Friends who represent Kent and south-east London of British Rail's secretive approach to its plans for the development of the channel tunnel rail link in the past three and a half years.
The amendment would go some distance toward ensuring, through the Secretary of State, that information on British Rails proposals appertaining to the Bill would be in the public arena. My unsatisfactory experience has alerted me to the importance of that happening in the future under the Bill.
Many unanswered questions about the fast rail link are relevant not only to the south-east of England but the whole country. I am also concerned about how the privatisation proposals will affect Network SouthEast, on which London's prosperity and future will always depend. Although it is right to seek ways of involving the private sector in the operation of British Rail, Network SouthEast, which serves a great capital city, will always need to be the beneficiary of some public subsidy. The House will want to know how that is likely to be organised in a privatisation Bill, so I echo the requests to my hon. Friend the Minister for details of those proposals in a White Paper as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the point about Network SouthEast being relevant not only to the south-east of England but to the whole of the United Kingdom. I understand that the figures that British Rail will publish tomorrow suggest that, although its loss is £150 million overall, the loss on Network SouthEast is £250 million. The hon. Gentleman's point must be taken on board; if Network SouthEast is to be supported—I accept that it must be, because of what it serves—it should not be at the expense of the rest of the United Kingdom. That is one of the reasons why we must have more information on what is proposed for the south—east and the rest of the country.

Mr. Wolfson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point in support of my argument.
I have no doubt that London is now in danger of being less well served by its rail system than other capital cities with which it is in competition. We are having some difficulty in persuading the European bank to come to London and we may not win that argument. The issues on that are much wider than this debate, but one of the factors that will ensure that London continues to be a highly successful financial centre serving the rest of the world is people's ability to travel to and from work. As I have often done in the past, I compare London with Paris, which has

a 19th-century rail network and a metro network equivalent to our tube. But it also has a whole new network of RER railway lines crossing Paris from 30 miles outside to the centre. Trains on that network travel at 60 mph through the centre of the city. London has no equivalent, and plans for one are still a long way off.
Through a sensible approach to privatisation, we can better overcome some of the problems, but it is important that the House has an opportunity to monitor and debate the plans as often as possible as they develop. In that context, I support the amendment.

Mr. Milligan: I sympathise with those who have pressed home the need for the House to have greater information. We have waited a long time for this White Paper—it was first promised in December last year.
The delay has been extremely fruitful, however. At the time, the proposal that appeared to be circulating in the Government was to begin by selling off InterCity. That would have been a bad mistake. First, it would not have promoted competition. Whoever had bought the company would not want to open up lines to competition from rivals. Secondly, it would have been horrendously complicated. British Rail calculated that 30,000 separate issues would have to be included in the contract between InterCity and other operators if the scheme was to work.
The plan that now appears to be circulating in the Government, to allow franchising, is a much more practical way to improve rail services, which is what privatisation should be about.
10.15 pm
Experience in Sweden, a country which Opposition Members have long admired, shows that franchising has been extremely successful. A bus company in the south of Sweden known as BK-Train won the franchise for 400 kilometers against competition from Swedish Rail. The result after the first year has been a halving of fares, a 40 per cent. increase in use and 95 per cent. of the trains arriving on time. Some of the modifications that the company has introduced have been copied by Swedish railways elsewhere on the network. Franchising and a limited introduction of competition are a practical way to improve rail services, which is why the delay in the White Paper has been a good development.
I represent a railway constituency in which more than 2,000 people work in the industry, so I make a plea to the Minister not to rush any decision about the future of British Rail Maintenance Ltd., in Eastleigh, which maintains most of the trains in the southern region and employs almost 1,800 of the 2,000 people to whom I have referred. BRML is a successful part of British Rail and a semi-independent company. It repaired most of the motors damaged by the wrong type of snow recently; fortunately those motors got the right sort of maintenance in Eastleigh. The company has been profitable and increasingly efficient and is taking more steps towards efficiency.
BRML has been hampered, however, by not having the right to compete equally with other companies. It does not, for instance, have the right to compete for contracts to maintain trains north of the river. Apparently the British Rail Board has been trying to reduce its ability to compete with private companies on repairing electric
traction motors. It cannot compete effectively with depots in Network SouthEast. The tendency is to give work to those depots first and afterwards to BRML.
Before the Minister makes any decisions on BRML's future, I hope that he will consult its managers and its work force. I am delighted that he has accepted an invitation to come and visit the works and do just that. I hope that he will not rush his decision, because in this matter consideration will lead to a better decision than any attempt to rush one through.

Mr. Snape: I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) on the comprehensive shopping list that he presented to the Minister. If he elicits a better response from him than we have had, we will be worthy of double congratulations. Many of his points, particularly about the White Paper, were pertinent.
The hon. Gentleman asked about taxation policies and transport. Does he really need a White Paper to find out what the Government's transport taxation policies are? They are very simple: spend as much public money as possible—hundreds of millions of pounds—on widening the M25, and, at least in the view of the former Secretary of State, now Lord Parkinson, then abolish the subsidy for Network SouthEast by 1992. That was his original intention, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) played a prominent role in opposing it. Perhaps he thinks it just as well that Lord Parkinson left the Department of Transport as soon as he did.
A toll road has been proposed for the west midlands, yet we cannot get the go-ahead to spend the comparatively small amounts of money necessary for the Snow Hill railway line. The hon. Member for Christchurch effectively put across points such as these.
We need a White Paper to find out exactly what is in the Government's mind. We suspect that, even now, a White Paper is being drafted at the Treasury and that its purpose will be to save even more public money on the railways. It will not augur well for the hon. Member for Sevenoaks or his constituents, or for the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan), whom I congratulate on his speech.
A continuation of the Government's taxation policy for transport is bad for rail users and for those who maintain or operate the system. I hope that the Minister will tell us, if he knows, what is in the White Paper or that he will say as much as possible to satisfy his hon. Friends. We need to know whether the railways' capital requirements and revenue support needs will for once be met, and we should like to hear about negotiations between the Department and the Treasury to bring that happy situation about.

Mr. Freeman: Before dealing with the amendment, I shall deal with the important point raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). The hon. Gentleman is not in his place, but I am sure that he will shortly return. He asked whether we have the correct sequence for the introduction of the Paving Bill and the White Paper on the future of British Rail. That issue is highly relevant to the amendment. I think that we have the sequence right, because the Paving Bill gives British Rail and British Coal the power to hire consultants and extra staff to consider, in due course, our proposals for the introduction of private sector capital into both industries. I am sure that the House wants the reasoned opinions and advice of both those corporations, because they will enable

hon. Members to reach a conclusion about the main legislation for British Rail which we intend to introduce later this autumn.
British Rail and British Coal have no power to introduce any element of privatisation until the main legislation has been passed by Parliament. There is no prospect of franchising commencing until the main legislation has been passed. We must first give BR and British Coal the power to consider our proposals. They will then advise not only us, but, through the Government, the House.

Mr. Dobson: Will the advice to BR and British Coal and their advice in response to Government proposals be made available to hon. Members?

Mr. Freeman: I do not speak for British Coal, British Rail or the Opposition. I have assured the House that, as the Minister responsible for British Rail on a day-to-day basis, I will ensure that the House is properly informed of BR's views. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy has heard the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mackinlay: rose——

Mr. Freeman: I have only a few minutes, but if the hon. Gentleman finds that I have not covered his questions, I shall give way towards the end of my reply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) asked for specific assurances which I am happy to give. He asked for a categorical assurance that the White Paper would be published before Royal Assent to the Paving Bill. I give him that assurance and hope that that will ensure the sequence that we debated at length in Committee so that the work that British Rail will entrust to its advisers, consultants and extra staff, will have the White Paper as a point of reference.
There may be opportunity in Parliament for comment on the White Paper before Royal Assent, although the debate on the Paving Bill is probably not the right legislative peg upon which to hang a detailed debate. The House may need to have fuller consideration of the White Paper, but the timing of a debate and whether there is one is not a matter for me. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured on that point. I can confirm our intention to publish the White Paper before the House rises for the summer recess.
My hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan), for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and for Christchurch raised two key points. The first concerns what kind of railway we want to see in the last decade of the 20th century. We want an expanding railway, and one that has been helped by the Government. In the past two financial years, we have increased by £1,000 million the resources available to British Rail. Thank goodness, we did not have a national transportation plan setting out precisely, and no more, what funds should be available to British Rail. The Government responded quickly and promptly, in the face of the recession, to maintain the investment programme of British Rail and to increase the investment programme of London Transport, particularly the London Underground part.
We want to see more choice and responsibility introduced into British Rail and to turn the clock back beyond 70 years, to when different companies offered different services, because we believe that choice is


essential. We want an efficient industry, and the forces of the private sector, including BRML, may well improve productivity of those parts of British Rail.
The transfer of freight and passengers on to rail is an important subject and one which would have had to be addressed whether or not we were proposing privatisation. I can confirm that, within the Department of Transport, we are giving serious consideration to the steps that would be needed to ensure that, when decisions are taken on hauling freight, they are taken on the basis of a level playing field in terms of charging and the fiscal regime.
I was asked about what is in the White Paper. I put myself firmly in the school of pragmatists within the Tory party and I want to ensure that our proposals are workable. I believe that this White Paper is rather like a Stilton cheese—[Interruption] I am glad that mirth is breaking out on the Opposition Benches, but perhaps Labour Members will bear with me as I finish my speech.
The White Paper will show that we have workable policies for introducing the private sector into British Rail. We are proposing that BR should have responsibility for running the track and the signalling, through what will become a track authority. There will be a regulator responsible for ensuring fair competition and access to the rail network on the basis of charges to the track authority. We want a privatised rail freight system, and we want to franchise as much as possible of the passenger service, as fast as possible. We are very much in the hands of the private sector, hut, already, informal conversations have shown that the private sector thinks that that policy will work. By the end of this Parliament, a significant proportion of passenger services will be run under franchises.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks asked me about subsidy. I can confirm that, for both Network SouthEast and the regional railway system, a subsidising regime will continue through the passenger service obligation grant, which will be paid to those who operate railway services whether in the public or the private sector.

Mr. Adley: I am sorry to press my hon. Friend on this point. Can he confirm that my understanding of what the Minister said early this afternoon is as I put it to him? That is that British Rail, as my hon. Friend has just said, will be responsible for all the track, all the signalling and the safety of passengers, whoever is running the trains, if anybody else does run them.

Mr. Freeman: I am happy to conclude my remarks by discussing safety, which is extremely important. I confirm what my hon. Friend said. The Health and Safety Executive will set safety standards and monitor them. But the track authority will be responsible, on a day-to-day basis, for all safety issues on the track. That makes sense. I believe that the private sector, whether operating freight services or franchised passenger services, would want it, and that the travelling public would want it.
I hope that on the basis of those remarks my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend very much for his generous answers to the points that I made. Obviously there will be a great deal more to be said when the White

Paper is published. On the basis of the assurances that my hon. Friend has given me tonight, I am perfectly happy to withdraw the amendment.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in line 29, after 'corporate', insert 'or regulatory body.'.
I do not wish to detain the House. Indeed, some of this is a continuation of, or arises out of, a debate that we have just had. However, it would be helpful if Ministers were able to give us a little more information as to how they envisage the privatised coal and rail sectors being regulated. They have not made this at all clear. Indeed, as the debate on rail services has continued, it has become clear that full-blown privatisation is probably not now on the cards at all.
What we are talking about is the majority of services continuing to be run by the state rail undertaking, and some of the services being franchised. One question that arises immediately is whether or not the track authority will be separate from British Rail as an operator, or whether British Rail will serve in a double capacity. If the Minister were to give some information about that, it would help to clarify forward thinking.
One point that was made when I intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson)—it is a matter for concern—related to how British Rail will relate to the track authority, to the regulator and to the other companies operating. Clearly, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) pointed out, if British Rail were to issue the franchises, it would not he likely to do so on terms good for competition, just as British Gas has not been terribly co-operative in giving other people access to the pipelines.
If the figures that we expect to get from British Rail tomorrow are correct-showing that the railways lost £150 million, but Network SouthEast lost £250 million; in other words, that the rest of the network, grossed up, made a profit—many concerns will arise, and they will have to be addressed.
The first is one that I accept—that people in London and the south-east will clearly be concerned that vital electric services are loss makers, and that they may be put at risk, either because the franchising will result in cherry picking that might increase the loss to British Rail, or because the support or subsidy is inadequate to maintain both service and forward investment. But, clearly, the rest of the United Kingdom will be concerned that the subsidising of Network SouthEast may be at the expense of services elsewhere.
As I represent a north of Scotland constituency I do not have to tell the Minister that we are extremely concerned about the constant publication, in the Scottish papers, of maps that show the future rail network finishing at Edinburgh and Glasgow, with no line serving the north of Scotland. We are unable to get any commitment to the electrification of the east coast main line.
I put a full stop at that point, because Ministers are in the habit of suggesting that the east coast main line has been electrified. At the risk of boring the House, I repeat that it has been electrified to Edinburgh. The east coast main line always used to run to Aberdeen, and those of us who are served by Aberdeen insist that it should continue to do so. The lack of electrification is an extremely worrying development.
Similarly, the poor quality of the investment in the services to the north, in terms of rolling stock and the development of services, gives us considerable concern. We need to know how British Rail and the track authority will operate, and how they will relate to each other. For example, it seems very unlikely that there will be a huge queue of people wanting to take up the franchise to operate a service between Aberdeen and Inverness.
Let me be quite clear: if somebody comes forward and is willing to do it, and believes that he can do it as an attractive proposition and profitably, I will have no objection whatever, just as I had no objection to the Stagecoach experiment from Aberdeen providing seating accommodation on the trains to the south.
What will happen, however, if no organisation is interested in providing the service, and British Rail feels that it is under pressure to cut loss-making services so that it can compete elsewhere in the network? That is an example of problems that are giving cause for concern. The sooner that we can obtain clarification from the Government of the exact role of the regulator in parcelling out services, including subsidised services, and maintaining services, the better will we be reassured.
was glad that the Minister was able to say that the White Paper will be published before the House rises for the summer recess. The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to know that I think that that is the right sequence of events I say that because I think that the debate has helped to head off some of the more ideological flights of fantasy and to draw out some real concerns. I hope that those concerns will help to shape future debates on the basis that full-blown privatisation of the rail network—it would seem that the Government have not been able to produce a viable scheme—is not a serious proposition.
The Government say that they intend to have a rail regulator, but they have not explained how their concept will operate. They left us with a complete blank when we considered the regulation of the coal industry. We considered licensing in Committee, and the Minister said that that was something that he might consider. If there is to be licensing, however, there must be a licensing authority, whether it is a Government Department, a Crown agency, a regulator or whatever.
There may be a logical continuation for British Coal as the regulator for the coal industry even if it is not to be the operator of pits. The Minister knows that I am not happy with the idea of British Coal, in the private sector, being the operator of pits and the licensee of private pits. I do not understand how such a concept can square with the aspiration of genuine competition and choice. It means that one operator will have a clear advantage over any competitor.
It is interesting that references have been made to the Health and Safety Executive while discussing the details of safety in both the coal and rail industries. It may be appropriate for the HSE to have a continuing role and for there to be a specific safety responsibility for the regulators and the operators in both the coal industry and the rail network. It is noteworthy that the Minister said earlier that we cannot talk about safety too much or in too much detail.
We must not put responsibility for ensuring safety in too many places. The danger of separating responsibilities

is that someone will think that an element of safety is somebody else's responsibility. Surely every operator must have accountability for safety to the HSE and to whoever issues the operating licence. The right to remove or alter the licence could be a factor in determining safe operation.
If franchising is to be the direction of access to private operators to the rail network, who will set the terms of the franchises? Will they be set by the track authority or an independent body? It is clear that they cannot be set by British Rail if BR is itself an operator, albeit the major operator.
If British Rail is to continue as an operating body, to whom is it likely to be accountable in future? At present, BR is accountable to the Secretary of State for Transport, and through him or her to the House. If BR is to continue as a public sector body, will that relationship continue, or will BR be accountable through the regulator or the traffic authority? What will be its accountability? The Minister must understand that the relationship is being changed even though the details are not apparent. Some clarification would be appropriate.
This is the Government's sixth major privatisation. They have all been different. I do not complain about that—they have properly been different, in the sense that different industries require different approaches. It is sad, however, that we have not always learnt the lessons of the preceding privatisation, and that every new regulator had to embark on a new learning curve. The embarrassment suffered over the past two weeks by OFFER, the electricity regulator, because of the scale of the profits made by that industry, has been apparent. The concentration of ownership in the generating sector needs to be further addressed.
I accept that one cannot apply the techniques used in the privatisation of gas or electricity to those of British Coal and British Rail. However, after 13 years, the Government should have some coherent idea of whether there will be a regulator, and the broad nature of his relationship with the overall track and licensing authorities, and with those operating in the industry.
The Government said that there will be a regulator for rail, but they have not explained how that regulator will operate or relate. They have not even said whether there will be a regulator for coal. It is high time they did. Given that we may not get a coal White Paper before the summer recess, regulation is essential. Although competition may help to provide some discipline, which is clearly a Government objective, it will not wholly meet the bill. There will clearly be a need to ensure that the industry is properly accountable.

Mr. Eggar: I hope that I can go some way to helping the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). A number of his detailed questions will be answered in the rail White Paper, which will be published before the House rises for the summer recess. It will include a proposal to establish a rail regulator, which will be separate from British Rail and therefore—as other regulators—ultimately responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The regulatory and franchising functions to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be separated from British Rail—but for more details, the hon. Gentleman will have to await the best-selling White Paper.
As to a regulator for coal, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the situation there is very different. It is not a


question of a classic regulatory arrangement whereby an outside individual or agency is charged with examining rates of return, prices, and so on. The sense in which the hon. Gentleman uses the word "regulator" relates to his concept of a licensing authority, which he would probably expect to examine such questions as the allocation of deep coal-bearing land, or land otherwise of interest to independent operators.
I do not want to discuss current thinking because the consultation period finished only a week ago. We received a number of detailed responses, particularly on some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. It would not be appropriate to make up our minds in advance of considering those consultation papers—not all of which I have yet been able to read.
The hon. Gentleman made the good point that it is important for the operator of coal mining activities to have a separate function from that of the licensing authority. It is clear that the roles need to be separated, although I am not sure exactly how that is to be done.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: In the event of a competitive bid for a licence, whether it is for a single pit or for a group of pits—I understand that in Scotland, for instance, there may well be an NUM bid, private sector bids and a bid from a miners' consortium—who will make the ultimate decision? Will it be the Secretary of State, or will the decision-making be delegated?

Mr. Eggar: That, I think, is a separate issue. I have no doubt that, if it were decided that the assets of mines were to be sold on a regional basis in the form of a trade sale—which is presumably what the hon. Gentleman is postulating—responsibility would ultimately lie with the Secretary of State. If assets subsequently remained to be disposed of, there might well be a need for another entity to take charge, at arm's length from the Secretary of State. We have not made any decisions; we are evaluating the consultation responses. Such questions, however, must clearly be answered, and they will be answered before the final Bill is presented.

Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made several valid points about profitability and the involvements on offer. Did not capital investment in the electricity supply industry give very reasonable returns, and would not investment in the coal and rail industries also give reasonable returns?

Mr. Eggar: I agree that the hon. Gentleman's point about the profitability of electricity companies should not go unanswered, but I am not sure that this is the forum in which to answer it.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I had no intention of pressing this matter, although I thought it important for us to debate it. The Minister has responded constructively. In a way, the debate is premature; on the other hand, it is better for us to have a debate before the Government have formulated all their ideas.
I am grateful to the Minister on two counts. First, he made it clear that he recognised that the establishment of some form of licensing authority was the way forward for the coal industry. It is encouraging to learn that that is the Government's view; it has a certain logic, and such an arrangement could be operated flexibly.
I am still concerned about the lack of clarity in the division of responsibilities in the rail sector. As the Minister says, however, we shall have to wait for the already long-awaited White Paper. If it does not deal with the issue, I shall write to the Minister for Public Transport to seek further clarification.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Snape: We have had quite a long debate, preceded by a comprehensive Committee stage, on a Bill which—as we have said from the outset—is fairly short in substance.
I very much doubt whether the concerns of my hon. Friends who have spoken so eloquently and knowledgeably about conditions in the coal mining industry have been answered satisfactorily at any stage. The fact is that pensioners in the industry have no security, and there has been very little commitment on safety. Indeed, secrecy rather than safety seems to be the Government's motto for the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) dealt extensively with the problems in the industry. I hope that my hon. Friends who spoke so eloquently will forgive me if I turn from the importance of the coal industry to a subject which I am sure they will agree is just as important—the future needs of the railways.
The Government have failed to answer the central question about the need of the railways for finance. For 13 years the Government have starved British Rail of capital investment. No matter what Ministers say or how they try to mislead the House, the Government have cut revenue support for the railway industry to the minimum and have controlled British Rail's spending plans, with civil servants continuously double guessing professional railway men. They have invested heavily, and continue to do so, in the road network, which is free at the point of use, and have ignored the competitive effect of that investment on the railway industry.
For many years the Government have encouraged the use of company cars, now—uniquely in Great Britain—seen as an automatic perk for the better-paid. They have tolerated high road casualty levels and have made little attempt to enforce safety standards, particularly for heavy lorries. Private-sector interest has been shown by companies such as Stagecoach and Virgin. It is based on leasing existing trains from British Rail rather than on investment in new trains. It is a question of new colours rather than new coaches.
The latest proposals, specious as they are, have had an enormous impact on the already declining morale of British Rail's work force. What is there in the Bill to encourage British Rail's work force or the coalminers to respond to the new challenges that they face? What will happen to their jobs, their pensions, their travel facilities? Ministers appear, apparently, not to know. Who will maintain the recruitment and training programmes in both industries and, just as important, who will pay for them? When will the orchestrated media campaign—orchestrated by Treasury Ministers—against British Rail, with its damaging effects on morale, end?
On 6 April this year British Rail completed its most fundamental reoganisation since nationalisation. It was entitled "Organising for Quality." It was designed, so BR management said, to focus on customers' needs—though I notice that they are now passengers again—and to deliver the quality standards required. Less than three months after its completion, the Government's proposals in the Bill require yet another upheaval for railway staff, with the separation of infrastructure from train operation and the establishment of franchise areas. Where is the efficiency in that, and how much more managment and staff time is to be wasted on another reorganisation rather than on operating and running the railway industry?
We have been this way before on many previous occasions. I remind the ideologues in the Conservative party that private ownership of the railway industry is nothing new. The grouping of more than 100 railway companies on a geographical basis in 1923 took place because of the virtual bankruptcy of many of those private companies. The Prime Minister talks about the joys of the brass buttons and the chocolate and cream. He must have been a child prodigy with a vengeance. He is the same age as I am, and I was six when the railway industry was nationalised. I was no child prodigy, I must say, before Conservative Members intervene. However, the Prime Minister talks nostalgically about the great days of the chocolate and cream. That grouping in 1923 lasted for less than 30 years and did not stave off bankruptcy for many of the privately owned railway companies.
In a book well known to railway buffs—"British Railways 1948 to 1973"—its author, T. R. Gourvish, said:
The financial state of the railways on the eve of nationalisation was worse than it had been in the difficult years of the late 1930s … Starved of investment and hampered by the enormous backlog of repairs and renewals, the industry could do no more than offer a product much inferior to that of pre-war days.
That is the experience of private ownership of the railway industry over the years. Privatisation will he inefficient and wasteful. In the case of the mines in particular, it could—as it was in the past—be positively dangerous.
We shall oppose the Bill because we think that it is a bad Bill. We shall oppose the succeeding and detailed legislation tooth and nail.

Mr. Barnes: This is a sad Bill and it has been a rather sad day. Before 10.9 pm, only one Conservative Back Bencher—the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley)—had made a speech and he is generally critical of the proposals to privatise railways. No Conservative Members have defended the Bill.

Mr. Milligan: rose——

Mr. Barnes: Not before 10.9 pm.
For the bulk of the day, we have been discussing pensions and safety; only Labour Members, the Minister and the hon. Member for Christchurch have spoken. Conservative Members have been silent about a matter of considerable importance.
On Second Reading, the speeches that we heard from Conservative Members tended to be maiden speeches.

Some parts of those maiden speeches may have been about the coal industry and British Rail, but generally maiden speeches follow a pattern——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The speeches would not have been in order if they had not covered the Bill.

Mr. Barnes: They were in order, but they followed the pattern that maiden speeches generally take. Conservative Members did not deal with the measure before them. They seemed to miss three of their hon. Friends who previously spoke in debates on the coal industry because we won three good victories in Nottingham and got rid of them.
The Bill is a paving measure. It is a peculiar paving measure, because one would expect it not to give the detail of later measures but to say something about the path down which we are going. Some of the speeches that have been made on pensions show that that is not so, that nothing is ruled out and nothing is ruled in and that we do not know what will emerge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was concerned about the railway police, but no idea was given of the role that they will play.
Safety is of the greatest importance to the railway and coal industries, yet it has not been mentioned. Points have been made about the future role of passenger transport executives and regulators. Will there be an Ofrail, as we have had Ofgas?
Privatisation is being pushed on to rail and mining communities, where collectivism, association, comradeship and working together have been considerably to the fore. The pattern might have changed in some areas and pits may be more cosmopolitan than they used to be, but they are based solidly on communities that work together. Even this Government should worry about introducing into those areas the principles of competition, possessive individualism, fighting one's own corner or entrepreneurial values. They should not simply be concerned about pushing the ideological line that they have followed with electricity and gas privatisation.
It is also sad that more and more matters are being removed from parliamentary scrutiny. The Department of Energy has already disappeared, which meant that the Select Committee on Energy also disappeared. In future, questions on rail and coal, which would have been dealt with during Question Time, will be pushed to one side. We have seen that happen with agency agreements, and more and more issues are removed from the Floor of the House.
A consequence of previous privatisations—the same will be true of the Bill—is that little action is taken by the management of the industries involved to defend public provision. The Opposition should be worried about why there was the necessary commitment among the work force but not among the management. The management looked for the opportunities that were availabe under the new entrepreneurship.
As the Government have not prepared a White Paper or the necessary paving Bill, there is still time for them to decide to drop the measure, or are we to wait for a White Paper which might be like a chapter in a book about football by Len Shackleton. The chapter dealt with what the average director knew about football—it was a blank sheet. There is a danger that we shall have a White Paper


which will be as useful as a blank sheet. We want clear information before we can even contemplate allowing the measure to proceed.

Mr. Cryer: Someone shouted that I have just arrived. I have been on the telephone, but I have attended the debate from the early evening arid have already participated. I should not have to give that explanation.
The House is a place to debate issues, and it is a measure of the Government's attitude that Conservative Back Benchers want to finish the debate, push the paving Bill through and get another slot in the wrecking of British Rail. That is what the Bill means——

Mr. Eggar: indicated dissent.

Mr. Cryer: The Minister shakes his head, but he should talk to the Minister for Public Transport. The Bill has caused mayhem with the Leeds-Bradford electrification proposals. The passenger transport authority has negotiated with the best faith and the greatest patience, but the Royal Bank of Scotland refused to proceed with leasing because it was critical of the privatisation proposals. It was not prepared to accept that it would be as safe to lease from a private organisation as it would from a public organisation such as the PTA.
The Bill should be withdrawn. It has caused damage, wasted time and led to extra negotiations and difficulties for a perfectly sensible electrification proposal which the Government want. It will also throw into jeopardy a national system of rail transport, which has been built over many years. The national rail system did not arise by chance. There were clearing houses between the private companies, and there will have to be again if there is a franchising operation to ensure that various franchised services work in conjunction rather than against each other. Co-operation is needed for a decent transport service.
The idea of choice is absolutely ludicrous. Several trains cannot leave a station at 10.30 am, especially if they are going in opposite directions, because that would be unsafe. When the Stockton-Darlington first operated in 1825, the idea was that there could he many users of the track. The reason that that was stopped was that the system posed a danger to life and limb.
The Bill is going backwards, not forwards. We shall find that the railway network, instead of encouraging passengers, will put people off by its complexity and uncertainty. Whatever the Minister says, the Bill has cast uncertainty over the railway network, over the management and over the work force who are, by and large, highly dedicated and want to give a decent public service. The Bill will not help and the best thing that the House could do with it is to tear it up.

Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order—it is certainly bad manners—for junior Ministers and hon. Members to chatter to people who are in the Gallery?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The people concerned are riot in part of the Chamber. They are therefore outside the Chamber. However, I agree that there is too much noise. We should be able to hear hon. Members.

Mr. Freeman: We have had extensive debate on the paving Bill and, in Committee and on the Floor of the House, the Bill has been justified and should now pass to another place. Our proposals for the privatisation of British Coal and the introduction of private-sector capital into British Rail will be in the best interests of the work force, of the passengers and of the customers of British Coal. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 216.

Division No. 44]
[11.05 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Day, Stephen


Aitken, Jonathan
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Alexander, Richard
Devlin, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dicks, Terry


Amess, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Ancram, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arbuthnot, James
Dover, Den


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Duncan, Alan


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dunn, Bob


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Eggar, Tim


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Elletson, Harold


Bates, Michael
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evennett, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Faber, David


Body, Sir Richard
Fabricant, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Booth, Hartley
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forman, Nigel


Bowis, John
Forth, Eric


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Freeman, Roger


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
French, Douglas


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fry, Peter


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gale, Roger


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gallie, Phil


Burns, Simon
Gardiner, Sir George


Burt, Alistair
Garnier, Edward


Butcher, John
Gill, Christopher


Butler, Peter
Gillan, Ms Cheryl


Butterfill, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorst, John


Carrington, Matthew
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Cash, William
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Chapman, Sydney
Hague, William


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hannam, Sir John


Coe, Sebastian
Hargreaves, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Harris, David


Congdon, David
Harvey, Nick


Conway, Derek
Haselhurst, Alan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hawkins, Nicholas


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawksley, Warren


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hayes, Jerry


Cormack, Patrick
Heald, Oliver


Couchman, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cran, James
Hendry, Charles


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hicks, Robert






Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Powell, William (Corby)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Redwood, John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Horam, John
Riddick, Graham


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hunter, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jack, Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jenkin, Bernard
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C &amp; S)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kirkwood, Archy
Shersby, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Sims, Roger


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Soames, Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lawrencè, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Legg, Barry
Spink, Dr Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spring, Richard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sproat, Iain


Lidington, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lightbown, David
Stephen, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Allan


Lord, Michael
Streeter, Gary


Luff, Peter
Sumberg, David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sweeney, Walter


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sykes, John


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maclean, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Thomason, Roy


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marland, Paul
Thurnham, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Tracey, Richard


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tredinnick, David


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Trend, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Trotter, Neville


Milligan, Stephen
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain
Tyler, Paul


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moate, Roger
Walden, George


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Monro, Sir Hector
Wallace, James


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waller, Gary


Needham, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nelson, Anthony
Watts, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wheeler, Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whittingdale, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Widdecombe, Ann


Norris, Steve
Wiggin, Jerry


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wilkinson, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Willetts, David


Ottaway, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Page, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Paice, James
Wolfson, Mark


Patnick, Irvine
Wood, Timothy


Pawsey, James
Yeo, Tim


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pickles, Eric



Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Porter, David (Waveney)
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Mr. Tim Boswell.





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Godsiff, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Allen, Graham
Graham, Thomas


Alton, David
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Ashton, Joe
Grocott, Bruce


Austin-Walker, John
Gunnell, John


Barnes, Harry
Hain, Peter


Bayley, Hugh
Hall, Mike


Bell, Stuart
Hanson, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bennett, Andrew F.
Heppell, John


Benton, Joe
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hinchliffe, David


Berry, Roger
Hood, Jimmy


Betts, Clive
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Boateng, Paul
Hoyle, Doug


Boyce, Jimmy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bradley, Keith
Hutton, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Jamieson, David


Burden, Richard
Janner, Greville


Byers, Stephen
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Caborn, Richard
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)
Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Canavan, Dennis
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Cann, James
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Chisholm, Malcolm
Keen, Alan


Clapham, Michael
Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Khabra, Piara


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Leighton, Ron


Clelland, David
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lewis, Terry


Coffey, Ms Ann
Livingstone, Ken


Cohen, Harry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Connarty, Michael
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Loyden, Eddie


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McAllion, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
McCartney, Ian


Cousins, Jim
MacDonald, Calum


Cryer, Bob
McKelvey, William


Cummings, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
McLeish, Henry


Dalyell, Tarn
McMaster, Gordon


Darling, Alistair
McNamara, Kevin


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McWilliam, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Madden, Max


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Alice


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Mandelson, Peter


Denham, John
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Don
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dobson, Frank
Martlew, Eric


Donohoe, Brian
Maxton, John


Dowd, Jim
Meale, Alan


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Milburn, Alan


Eagle, Ms Angela
Miller, Andrew


Enright, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Etherington, William
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morgan, Rhodri


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Morley, Elliot


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Flynn, Paul
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Mudie, George


Foulkes, George
Mullin, Chris


Fyfe, Maria
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Galbraith, Sam
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Galloway, George
O'Hara, Edward


George, Bruce
Olner, William


Gerrard, Neil
O'Neill, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley






Pendry, Tom
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Pickthall, Colin
Snape, Peter


Pike, Peter L.
Soley, Clive


Pope, Greg
Spearing, Nigel


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Spellar, John


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Steinberg, Gerry


Primarolo, Dawn
Stevenson, George


Purchase, Ken
Stott, Roger


Quin, Ms Joyce
Strang, Gavin


Randall, Stuart
Straw, Jack


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Redmond, Martin
Tipping, Paddy


Reid, Dr John
Turner, Dennis


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Vaz, Keith


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Roche, Ms Barbara
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rogers, Allan
Wareing, Robert N


Rooker, Jeff
Watson, Mike


Rooney, Terry
Wicks, Malcolm


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Ruddock, Joan
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Wise, Audrey


Sheerman, Barry
Worthington, Tony


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wray, Jimmy


Short, Clare
Wright, Tony


Simpson, Alan



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr Thomas McAvoy.


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

LICENSING (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Licensing (Validation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.

CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.

That the draft Confiscation of the Proceeds of Drug Trafficking (Designated Countries and Territories) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (9) (European Standing Committees.).

MOTOR VEHICLES (NOISE)

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7857/91. relating to noise limits for motor vehicles; and supports the Government in its objectives of seeking the strictest possible limits consistent with technological capability and timing.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Travellers

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr Kirkhope.]

Mr. Michael Spicer: Many of my hon. Friends have expressed interest in joining in the debate. They have included my hon. Friends the Members for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), for Newbury (Mrs. Chaplin), for Worcester (Mr. Luff), for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). In the short time that is allocated to me, it will be impossible to accommodate all or perhaps any of my hon. Friends who may wish to intervene. However, the House will wish to note their interest and that of my other hon. Friends. It certainly suggests the need for a full debate in the near future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I first raised the subject of travellers in the House some 12 years ago, in 1980, again on a motion for the Adjournment. The invasion that took place at Castlemorton common in my constituency, on Friday 22 May, has prompted me to do so again. On that day, new age travellers, ravers and drugs racketeers arrived at a strength of two motorised army divisions, complete with several massed bands and, above all, a highly sophisticated command and signals system. However, they failed to bring latrines.
The numbers, speed and efficiency with which they arrived—amounting at one time to as many as 30,000 people—combined to terrorise the local community to the extent that some residents had to undergo psychiatric treatment in the days that followed.
Such an incident must never happen again, in my constituency or elsewhere. We need tighter laws, especially to give banning powers to the police; a Cabinet Committee to bring responsible Departments together; quicker and more co-ordinated police action; and a more effective application of existing policies by national and local authorities. The main Acts of Parliament that govern the issue are the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and the Public Order Act 1986. A certain amount of case law also arises, mainly from the miners' strikes of the 1980s.
There is therefore the problem that at least three Departments of State are directly involved in administering the relevant legislation: the Department of the Environment; the Home Office; and the Lord Chancellor's Office. Immediate steps must be taken to co-ordinate those Departments' activities, preferably through the formation of a special Cabinet Committee.
The Public Order Act focuses, in this context, on the law of trespass. Section 39 empowers to senior police officers to direct trespassers to leave land on which more than 12 vehicles have been brought or where there has been threatening or abusive behaviour. That would be all very well, except for the practical problem that, once 20,000 people—invariably accompanied by young children—have committed the trespass, it would require not an army but the Army of at least 100,000 persons to get them off.
The problem of mass gatherings must be dealt with before they take place. Section 39 of the Public Order Act


could be strengthened to that effect—for instance, by empowering the police to prevent further trespass where a direction to leave has already been given. But the real necessity is that chief constables should be given discretionary powers to ban such gatherings altogether if they decide that they are a threat to public order, in precisely the same way as section 13 of the 1986 Act empowers chief constables to ban public processions. Chief constables may wish to ban all gatherings that have not received an appropriate licence from the local authority.
In parenthesis, even where a licence has been granted, as at Glastonbury last weekend, there is a great problem of crowd control when such large numbers are involved. That is especially true when the crowd starts to disperse, as the police of Devon are finding out at this very moment.
The police argue that, to be effective, a banning power requires early intelligence about the forthcoming event. I think that that is only partly true. A banning order would put off the majority of the normally law-abiding, city-based partygoers. As they provide the bulk of the numbers, not to mention the noise, their absence would make the policing task much easier. There is no doubt, however, that police intelligence and hence their response capability must be greatly improved.
This can be brought about only if there is a great deal more co-operation and co-ordination between police forces. What happens now can almost be characterised as a game of pass the parcel between the forces. Stories—many of them no doubt apocryphal—abound about the police helping to fill up vehicles with petrol in order to get them across their borders and into the territory of another police force. Certainly a blind eye is turned to untaxed vehicles heading in the right direction—that is to say, out of territory.
There remains the wider issue of the extent to which, in a free society, people should be allowed or presented with the opportunity to lead a nomadic life, and the Caravan Sites Act attempts to deal with just that matter, with a core policy of providing permanent and transit sites for gipsies. A major defect of the Act—I hope that it will be dealt with in the review that the Government propose to undertake in line with their commitment to one in the manifesto—lies in the extremely wide definition of gipsies as
persons of nomadic habit of life".
That has meant, as I discovered when I was the Minister responsible for the matter, that the demand for provided places continually outstrips supply targets.
The police powers triggered by designation under the terms of the Act have in most parts of the country become a mirage. We therefore need a much tighter definition of "gipsy" as someone whose cultural heritage and economic history provide a clear justification for being on the move. With a tighter definition of "gipsy", it would be easier for local authorities to meet their designation targets swiftly, and once designation has been achieved, the police must move decisively against those who camp illegally on other people's land.
It is one thing under the 1968 Act to grant special dispensation—there are many such for gipsies—to those who have a deep-rooted cultural and economic tradition of travelling. It is quite another to provide mobile social security services and to waive the law of trespass for

anyone who decides to pick up sticks and shrug off the responsibilities that are the flipside of the rights of individuals provided by a civilised society.
Freedom of choice includes without doubt the right to choose one's life style—until it becomes a threat to the life style of the majority. The threat posed by new age travellers and hippies is to private property and the rule of law. Freedom without law can become anarchy, and the antidote of anarchy is often dictatorship.
It is time the Government acted with a greater sense of urgency and focus against the abuse of property rights and the threat to law posed by illegal encampments on a small and a large scale. The problem, which has been with us for many years, has now reached boiling point. If it is allowed to persist, vigilante groups will spring up and take matters into their own hands; and that way lie anarchy and chaos, not least for the gipsies themselves.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) on his success in raising this important issue. I am mindful of the fact that this must be one of the best attended Adjournment debates for some time. A number of my hon. Friends who are present have experience of problems with new age travellers and ravers, and they will no doubt have taken note of what my hon. Friend said. They may also want to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the chance of a full debate on this subject in due course.
My hon. Friend is well qualified to speak on this subject because, as he reminded the House, he was Minister of State, Department of the Environment from, I think, January 1990 to November 1990. I appreciate what he says about the need for tighter laws and I shall tell the House about the existing powers and the emphasis that should be placed on co-ordination.
I agree that co-ordination between police forces could be improved, and that such improvement is important in dealing with people on the move. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments about co-ordination through a Cabinet Committee are passed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend's comments about social security will no doubt be noted by my right hon. and hon. Friends in that Department. Trespass always gives rise to strong feelings.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: The Minister moved quickly over the issue of social security. Does he agree that that is the nub of the matter in so far as the life style of the new age travellers is sustained by what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) called mobile social security? Regulations enable such people to pick up social security payments anywhere in the country. Time and again, lay-bys in my constituency are full of new age travellers who are unable to move on because they have not got their girocheques. Can the Minister tell us more about the liaison between his Department and the Department of Social Security, because such liaison will enable us to grasp the nettle?

Mr. Wardle: As a result of what my hon. Friend has said, he can be assured that the issue will be raised with the Department of Social Security. I agree that the present system is an inducement and should be closely examined.


The problems that we are debating arise from the combination of ravers and new age travellers, and I should like to address the aspects of the problem that concern, first and foremost, the Home Office. However, I shall touch on the Department of the Environment.
During the summer travelling season, the incidence of unlawful occupation causes great distress to local communities and landowners. I assure the House that the Government are firmly committed to tackling the nuisance of illegal encampments in the most effective manner. The events in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South at Castlemorton common over the May bank holiday were exceptional by any standards. My other hon. Friends who are present for the debate have had similar experiences, but this was an exceptional and deeply unpleasant weekend. My hon. Friend spoke with deep feeling about the unpleasant scenes that unfolded in what is normally a beautiful part of rural England.
I condemn the lawlessness and lack of common decency shown by some of those who camped on Castlemorton common. It is unacceptable for people to try to put themselves beyond the reach of the law by acting together in huge numbers. There is no excuse for the abandonment of common decency, and I have every sympathy with those whose normally peaceful life was so rudely disrupted.
No one, including my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South, would deny that people have a right to lead a nomadic life if they so choose, but it is quite intolerable for people to behave in contravention of the law and with complete disregard for the rights of others. Faced with these events, my hon. Friend is right to ask what else the police can do, to what degree further co-ordination would help deal with the problem, and whether new powers should be made available to the police.
Mass gatherings present particular problems. The difficulty faced by the police when dealing with mass invasions such as that at Castlemorton common is not so much what powers they have as how to apply them—as I think my hon. Friend has recognised. The problem is as much logical as legal. The most effective measures that the police can take to deal with new age travellers are preventive. They can make sure that their intelligence gathering is good and that liaison with neighbouring forces and local authorities is close. If the police can monitor the movements of travellers, measures can be taken to try to ensure that the numbers do not build up in any one locality to unmanageable proportions.

Sir Jim Spicer: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wardle: As time for the debate is limited, perhaps my hon. Friend would allow me to make some more progress. I shall return to him.
Local authorities and landlords may be able to take action to prevent trespass on their land. For example, prior to the gathering on Castlemorton common, both Avon and Somerset and Gloucestershire constabularies were able to enforce injunctions to prevent travellers assembling on commons in their areas.

Sir Jim Spicer: I understand the constraints of time, but I am glad of the opportunity to make this one point. We are not just looking at landowners and farmers: we are looking also at our police forces, and they are not those directly involved in this incident. In all the counties

represented by my hon. Friends who are here, hundreds of police are being diverted weekend after weekend by these miserable people, and this has to be stopped.

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right, and that is why co-ordination between police forces to try to deal with these circumstances as they build up is important.
It is worth pointing out that, where necessary, chief constables can request mutual aid, as my hon. Friend knows, from neighbouring forces, and, where the scale grows, arrangements can quickly be put into place to supply the host area with additional manpower.
If, for whatever reason, the police cannot prevent huge numbers from establishing themselves on a site, inevitably they will decide to adopt a policy of containment, as happened at Castlemorton. We must bear in mind that the police have a delicate balance to maintain between dealing with crime and provoking disorder. There is only so much that one can do once a crowd of 20,000 has assembled. It would have been of no benefit to local residents that May weekend if insensitive action had provoked a full-scale riot.
Besides containment, the police can be expected to provide protection to local residents, as they did at Castlemorton, and mount an operation to tackle the drugs problems. The House will be interested to know that there were 73 arrests at the Castlemorton incident and another 74 cautions, all connected with drugs.

Mr. Paul Marland: The problem is not only the large gatherings—Castlemorton has highlighted the problems they cause—but the small ones. The police can move in if there are 13 vehicles, but if there are 12 they cannot, although that is just as terrifying and alarming for the landowners and the people in the district. These people go to isolated areas where there are a few houses, often occupied by elderly people, as has happened in my constituency on May hill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) will know. When they eventually go, the local community dig deep ditches and put huge piles of stone and large tree trunks across entrances so that nobody else can get in to enjoy these rural beauty spots, and the innocent picnickers or ramblers are denied access to the sites.

Mr. Wardle: I understand entirely what my hon. Friend has said: small-scale gatherings can be just as alarming as large-scale ones. I hope that the House will allow me to make progress by going through the powers that already exist and setting out Government actions.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has called for a full report from the chief constable of West Mercia on the policing of the events of Castlemorton common and on any lessons to be learned from it. My noble Friend the Minister of State is this week meeting chief constables to consider the powers available to the police service, the intelligence and liaison arrangements between forces, and their tactics for handling large gatherings. We shall consider what action may be necessary after consultation with those chief officers.
It is important to emphasise that the effect of successful police operations to prevent travellers gathering at particular locations is to split them up and move them on. The Government have looked hard at the issue of trespass on land, and there are no easy answers. Existing legislation provides a number of remedies for landowners to deal with


trespass on land by those who intend to reside. The vast majority of cases of trespass are resolved, as they should be, either informally or through the civil courts.
The Caravan Sites Act 1968, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South said that he was familiar, also has an important role to play. This Act places a duty on local authorities to provide adequate official sites for gipsies—this is the definition that my hon. Friend used—resorting to or residing in their area. For these purposes, gipsies are defined as
persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin.
The courts have given clear indications that, in this context "gipsy" has a broad definition.
Once a local authority has provided sufficient sites and thus become designated under the 1968 Act it has access, through the magistrates court, to move gipsies off any unauthorised site, whether owned privately or by the local authority, but despite the provision of 100 per cent. Exchequer grant for official sites, provision has not kept pace with the growth in the number of gipsy vehicles, as so defined, in England and Wales. Some 300 sites have been provided in all, including 10 in Hereford and Worcester.
Twenty-two years after the implementation of the 1968 Act, only 38 per cent. of district councils in England have been designated, and only one district council in Wales. So there are not enough sites provided by local authorities for the growing number of travellers—travellers within the broader definition. We are well aware of the difficulty that new age travellers do not always wish to occupy authorised sites but want instead to roam freely across the country where they please. We are also familiar with the argument that powers available to designated authorities under the 1968 Act are too cumbersome to deal quickly with the problem of persistent illegal camping. In addition, even where eviction powers may be used against those who are camped illegally, the effect may be to place them within the ranks of the statutorily homeless.
The Conservative party manifesto of this year recognised these problems, and the deficiencies in the legislative framework provided in the Caravan Sites Act 1968 for dealing with them. It undertook to tackle the problem by reviewing the 1968 Act, with the aim of reducing the nuisance of illegal encampments. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)—is taking the lead in this review. The Government hope shortly to be able to issue a consultation paper with proposals for reform, and will no doubt take account of what my hon. Friend has said this evening.
However, the question about the way the law seeks to deal with large gatherings, as well as smaller ones, and associated problems, such disorder and noise, is likely to remain. The police have the power at common law to order a crowd to disperse if they apprehend that a breach of the peace is likely to take place. They may also take steps to limit or prevent the build-up of a crowd by turning back people or vehicles if they consider that a breach of the peace is imminent. If necessary, the police may arrest as a result of or in order to prevent a breach of the peace.
Section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986, to which my hon. Friend referred, was conceived during the passage of the Public Order Bill in response to the mass invasions of land in around Stonehenge during the summer of 1986. Section 39 gives the police the discretionary power to direct trespassers to leave land where two or more trespassers have entered the land with the purpose of residing there, and the owner or occupier has asked them to leave; and if any of the trespassers is threatening or abusive; or if any of the trespassers causes damage; or if the trespassers between them bring 12 or more vehicles onto the land. Section 39 is not a substitute for normal civil procedures, but it provides a limited criminal sanction to deal with aggravated trespass.

Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister will be aware that, in Davidstow in north Cornwall, we had an invasion by very large numbers. Subsequently, the police, the landowners and the commoners felt that section 39 was not sufficient to deal with the problem. That was 12 months ago. I wonder whether the Home Office has taken account of that experience.

Mr. Wardle: It has. In fact, I am about to refer to a review of section 39.
In 1990, we undertook a thorough public evaluation of section 39 to assess how its relatively new powers were working. The review showed that, when used, the section provided a quick and effective remedy. On 22 May 1991, the then Home Secretary announced that no change to the law was required. The powers were there; it was a question of how they were used.
Apart from trespass, problems can also arise over noise nuisance where parties are held on the land. Where the local authority has adopted such measures, entertainment licensing laws under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 apply inter alia to rave parties. Where there is an entertainment on private land, therefore, in order to be legal, it must be licensed—provided, of course, that the local authority has taken up the available powers.
The police have no general power under entertainment licensing legislation to seize equipment used for parties, but their powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allow them to seize material which might be needed for evidential purposes to prevent its being lost, stolen or destroyed. As to noise, I understand that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides for environmental health officers to confiscate audio equipment to secure compliance with a noise abatement notice.
The measures that I have listed constitute a considerable array of powers which are available to the police and local authorities. Additionally, of course, the civil and criminal law apply.
I do not, therefore, wish to underestimate the difficulties of tackling the problem. Nevertheless, I can reassure my hon. Friend and the House we are examining whether and how the current position can be improved. The Government will do everything sensible that they can to remedy a difficult situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.